Re: [PATCH v4] x86/boot: Warn on future overlapping memcpy() use

2016-04-29 Thread Kees Cook
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kees Cook wrote: > >> If an overlapping memcpy() is ever attempted, we should at least report >> it, in case it might lead to problems, so it could be changed to a >> memmove() call instead. >> >> Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar >> Signed-off-

Re: [PATCH v4] x86/boot: Warn on future overlapping memcpy() use

2016-04-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kees Cook wrote: > If an overlapping memcpy() is ever attempted, we should at least report > it, in case it might lead to problems, so it could be changed to a > memmove() call instead. > > Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook > --- > v4: > - use __memcpy not memcpy since we

Re: [PATCH v4] x86/boot: Warn on future overlapping memcpy() use

2016-04-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Kees Cook wrote: > > > >> If an overlapping memcpy() is ever attempted, we should at least report > >> it, in case it might lead to problems, so it could be changed to a > >> memmove() call instead. > >> > >> S

Re: [PATCH v4] x86/boot: Warn on future overlapping memcpy() use

2016-04-28 Thread Kees Cook
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kees Cook wrote: > >> If an overlapping memcpy() is ever attempted, we should at least report >> it, in case it might lead to problems, so it could be changed to a >> memmove() call instead. >> >> Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar >> Signed-off-

Re: [PATCH v4] x86/boot: Warn on future overlapping memcpy() use

2016-04-28 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kees Cook wrote: > If an overlapping memcpy() is ever attempted, we should at least report > it, in case it might lead to problems, so it could be changed to a > memmove() call instead. > > Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook > --- > v4: > - use __memcpy not memcpy since we

[PATCH v4] x86/boot: Warn on future overlapping memcpy() use

2016-04-28 Thread Kees Cook
If an overlapping memcpy() is ever attempted, we should at least report it, in case it might lead to problems, so it could be changed to a memmove() call instead. Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Kees Cook --- v4: - use __memcpy not memcpy since we've already done the check. v3: - call m