From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753583AbcD1QsF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:48:05 -0400
Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:58086 "EHLO
	lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753535AbcD1Qrw (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:47:52 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:47:31 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Rename overlapping memcpy() to memmove()
Message-ID: <20160428174731.042b7394@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJLEi2pkdMg6xfQiu-SHJuUaftTC+vShm5+ZyqV7GQZgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160426214606.GA5758@www.outflux.net>
	<20160428090427.GB5773@gmail.com>
	<CAGXu5jK68mnKmkc1X6zKd-Bkat8Wryb9ifHUQ5pVTKHP9CJLWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160428093741.GA23251@gmail.com>
	<CAGXu5jJLEi2pkdMg6xfQiu-SHJuUaftTC+vShm5+ZyqV7GQZgw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Corporation
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

O> For example, this is what I've got currently:
> 
> /* Detect and warn about potential overlaps. */
> void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
> {
>         if (dest > src && dest - src < n)
>                 warn("Potentially unsafe overlapping memcpy detected!");
>         return __memcpy(dest, src, n);
> }
> 
> Does that seem okay? If so, I'll send the patch...

Probably useful for debug, but instead of relying on __memcpy
happening to handle overlaps - which isn't portable you could instead
debug all platforms by doing

	if (...) {
		warn(...)
		memmove()
	} else
		__memcpy


Alan