Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy fixes for v4.8-rc6-part2

2016-09-07 Thread Kees Cook
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> >>> - move page-spanning check behind a CONFIG since it's triggering false >>> positives >> >> Hmm. I pulled this, but looking at

Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy fixes for v4.8-rc6-part2

2016-09-07 Thread Kees Cook
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> - move page-spanning check behind a CONFIG since it's triggering false >> positives > > Hmm. I pulled this, but looking at it I realized that > > + depends on !COMPILE_TEST > >

Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy fixes for v4.8-rc6-part2

2016-09-07 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > - move page-spanning check behind a CONFIG since it's triggering false > positives Hmm. I pulled this, but looking at it I realized that + depends on !COMPILE_TEST doesn't make any real sense to me. All it does is make sure that "mak

Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy fixes for v4.8-rc6

2016-09-07 Thread Kees Cook
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Pulled, but: > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> Kees Cook (3): >> usercopy: fold builtin_const check into inline function > > Hmm. So with this, check_object_size() seems sane, but it's only > marked "inline".

Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy fixes for v4.8-rc6

2016-09-07 Thread Linus Torvalds
Pulled, but: On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > Kees Cook (3): > usercopy: fold builtin_const check into inline function Hmm. So with this, check_object_size() seems sane, but it's only marked "inline". And we've had the issue that without the __always_inline, gcc will