On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:31:20PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 2016 12:11 AM, "Linus Torvalds"
>> So the fact that this seems to have any significant effect on
>> performance suggests to me that it's being run unnecessarily
>
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> I need to re-check the copy_*_user changes, but on several
> architectures, the bounds checking is only triggered for non
> built-in-const sizes, so these kinds of pointless checks shouldn't
> happen.
They definitely happen at least on x86.
"
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:31:20PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2016 12:11 AM, "Linus Torvalds"
> So the fact that this seems to have any significant effect on
> performance suggests to me that it's being run unnecessarily
Yeah, I think check_object_size() is being run unnecessarily
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused by what you're objecting to. If I write:
>
> char buf[123];
>
> func(buf, size);
>
> And func eventually does some usercopy to buf, the idea is to check
> that size is in bounds.
That's the *IDEA*.
That's not what th
On Aug 23, 2016 12:11 AM, "Linus Torvalds"
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
>
> Please don't do this.
>
> There's no real reason to unwind the stack frame. If it's not on the
> current stack page, it
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:27:28PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
> >
> > Please don't do this.
> >
> > There's no real r
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:11:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
>
> Please don't do this.
>
> There's no real reason to unwind the stack frame. If it's not on the
> current st
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:18PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:27:19PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:55:22PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:27:18AM -07
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
>
> Please don't do this.
>
> There's no real reason to unwind the stack frame. If it's not on the
> current stack page, i
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:27:19PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:55:22PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:27:18AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh P
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:27:19PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:55:22PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:27:18AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf
> > > wrote:
> > > > Convert arch_within_stack_fra
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
Please don't do this.
There's no real reason to unwind the stack frame. If it's not on the
current stack page, it shouldn't be a valid source anyway, so
unwidning things just seem
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:55:22PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:27:18AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
> > >
> > > This also changes some existing beha
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:27:18AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
> >
> > This also changes some existing behavior:
> >
> > - Skip checking of pt_regs frames.
> > - Warn if it can't re
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
>
> This also changes some existing behavior:
>
> - Skip checking of pt_regs frames.
> - Warn if it can't reach the grandparent's stack frame.
> - Warn if it doesn't unwind to the e
Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
This also changes some existing behavior:
- Skip checking of pt_regs frames.
- Warn if it can't reach the grandparent's stack frame.
- Warn if it doesn't unwind to the end of the stack.
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf
---
arch/x86/lib/u
16 matches
Mail list logo
