On 9/22/22 23:49, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 11:05:47PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 9/22/22 17:55, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 09:10:56AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > So when this patch set is about to clean up this use case it should
>>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 11:05:47PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/22/22 17:55, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 09:10:56AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > [...]
> > > So when this patch set is about to clean up this use case it should
> > > probably
> > > also take care to remo
On 9/22/22 17:55, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 09:10:56AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 22.09.22 um 05:10 schrieb Kees Cook:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This series fixes up the cases where callers of ksize() use it to
>> > opportunistically grow their buffer sizes, which can run afoul
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 09:10:56AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 22.09.22 um 05:10 schrieb Kees Cook:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This series fixes up the cases where callers of ksize() use it to
> > opportunistically grow their buffer sizes, which can run afoul of the
> > __alloc_size hinting that CONFI
Am 22.09.22 um 05:10 schrieb Kees Cook:
Hi,
This series fixes up the cases where callers of ksize() use it to
opportunistically grow their buffer sizes, which can run afoul of the
__alloc_size hinting that CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE
use to perform dynamic buffer bounds checkin