From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@fedoraproject.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usercopy: Skip multi-page bounds checking on SLOB
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:07:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwVhy59d0OH1En_Z7agsQAkW41QoOXAptr9eQt25VMRNQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJi4qMD5p38i5NuR7fh38m7mp+7qZNXgUiGNRTaLtYoxA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Okay, I can live with that. I'd hoped to keep the general split
> between the other checks (i.e. stack) and the allocator, but if this
> is preferred, that's cool. :)
If it had been anything else than SLOB, I might have cared. As it was,
I didn't think it was worth worrying about SLOB together with
hardening.
It was also about the __check_object_size() modification just being
very ugly, with a "return NULL" in the middle of the function. I
looked at just splitting that function up, and having a part of it
that would just go away when the slab allocator wasn't smart enough,
but that would have been a bigger change that I'm not interested in
taking right now. So it could be a future improvement, and maybe we
could then re-instate SLOB with partial checking.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-19 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-17 22:29 [PATCH] usercopy: Skip multi-page bounds checking on SLOB Kees Cook
2016-08-18 14:21 ` Rik van Riel
2016-08-18 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-18 18:02 ` Rik van Riel
2016-08-19 18:00 ` Kees Cook
2016-08-19 10:31 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-19 19:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-19 20:03 ` Kees Cook
2016-08-19 20:07 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+55aFwVhy59d0OH1En_Z7agsQAkW41QoOXAptr9eQt25VMRNQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=labbott@fedoraproject.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).