Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] exec: seal system mappings

2025-01-06 Thread Kees Cook
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 03:48:23PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > So we have at least two userspace uses that this will breaks: checkpoint > restore and now gVisor, but who knows what else? How many config > options before we decide this can't be just on by default? See my reply to Lorenzo, but

Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] exec: seal system mappings

2025-01-06 Thread Kees Cook
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 09:38:10PM +, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 02:18:53PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 08:20:21PM +, jef...@chromium.org wrote: > > > Seal vdso, vvar, sigpage, uprobes and vsyscall. > > > > > > Those mappings are readonly or exe

Re: security/landlock/ruleset.c:96:9: warning: 'memcpy' accessing 4294967295 bytes at offsets 20 and 0 overlaps 6442450943 bytes at offset -2147483648

2025-01-06 Thread Kees Cook
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 06:04:56PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 07:26:27AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > >security/landlock/ruleset.c: In function 'create_rule': > > >> security/landlock/ruleset.c:96:9: warning: 'memcpy' accessing 4294967295 > > >> bytes at offset

Re: [PATCH] clk: ti: use kcalloc() instead of kzalloc()

2025-01-06 Thread Stephen Boyd
Quoting Ethan Carter Edwards (2024-12-29 21:28:58) > Use 2-factor multiplication argument form kcalloc() instead > of kzalloc(). > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/162 > > Signed-off-by: Ethan Carter Edwards > --- Applied to clk-next

Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Document MSM8976

2025-01-06 Thread Rob Herring (Arm)
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 13:01:49 +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Add compatible for MSM8976 IMEM. > > Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno > > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > Applied, thanks! Really, Bjorn sh

Re: security/landlock/ruleset.c:96:9: warning: 'memcpy' accessing 4294967295 bytes at offsets 20 and 0 overlaps 6442450943 bytes at offset -2147483648

2025-01-06 Thread Mickaël Salaün
I guess the GCC warning is a false positive? See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116494 On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 07:26:27AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git > master > head: 0bc21e701a6ffacfdde7f04f87d664d82