[lustre-devel] [PATCH] staging: lustre: ldlm: use designated initializers
Patrick Farrell
paf at cray.com
Mon Dec 19 08:50:02 PST 2016
James,
This should be a purely syntactical change, to help out tools - for GCC, I'm pretty sure the meaning of { } and { NULL } are the same. Also, I don't think struct randomization does what you're thinking.
Kees,
Is there anything written up on kernel struct randomization? I was trying to find a talk/post from you or something from LWN, but I couldn't find something about this specifically. (Probably because I can't find it among the other stuff that's been written up)
- Patrick
________________________________
From: lustre-devel <lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org> on behalf of James Simmons <jsimmons at infradead.org>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:22:58 AM
To: Kees Cook
Cc: devel at driverdev.osuosl.org; Greg Kroah-Hartman; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Oleg Drokin; Vitaly Fertman; Bruce Korb; Emoly Liu; lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH] staging: lustre: ldlm: use designated initializers
> Prepare to mark sensitive kernel structures for randomization by making
> sure they're using designated initializers. These were identified during
> allyesconfig builds of x86, arm, and arm64, with most initializer fixes
> extracted from grsecurity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org>
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> index 722160784f83..f815827532dc 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags,
> int added = (mode == LCK_NL);
> int overlaps = 0;
> int splitted = 0;
> - const struct ldlm_callback_suite null_cbs = { NULL };
> + const struct ldlm_callback_suite null_cbs = { };
>
> CDEBUG(D_DLMTRACE,
> "flags %#llx owner %llu pid %u mode %u start %llu end %llu\n",
Nak. Filling null_cbs with random data is a bad idea. If you look at
ldlm_lock_create() where this is used you have
if (cbs) {
lock->l_blocking_ast = cbs->lcs_blocking;
lock->l_completion_ast = cbs->lcs_completion;
lock->l_glimpse_ast = cbs->lcs_glimpse;
}
Having lock->l_* point to random addresses is a bad idea.
What really needs to be done is proper initialization of that
structure. A bunch of patches will be coming to address this.
_______________________________________________
lustre-devel mailing list
lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/attachments/20161219/bd5785da/attachment.htm>
More information about the lustre-devel
mailing list