In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote an extension to gcc that does global analysis to determine
> which pointers in 2.4.1 are ever treated as user space pointers (i.e,
> passed to copy_*_user, verify_area, etc) and then makes sure they are
> always treated that way.
Hi Daw
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 10:06:48AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Nice work - thanks. One request though, to you and anyone else doing such
> cleanups - please could you list the affected files separately near the
> beginning of your mail, so that people can tell at a glance whether there's
> any
Alexander Viro wrote:
> * verify_area() cleans the value, but you'll be better off
> considering these as dangerous - it only checks that range is OK and if
> pointer arithmetics moves you out of that range or you access piece longer
> than range in question...
Note that verify_area's argum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I wrote an extension to gcc that does global analysis to determine
> which pointers in 2.4.1 are ever treated as user space pointers (i.e,
> passed to copy_*_user, verify_area, etc) and then makes sure they are
> always treated that way.
Nice work - thanks. One request
> Looks like you've missed at least one place. Have you marked pointer
> arguments of syscalls as tainted? Path in question looks so:
In the exokernel param checker we do, but not for the one in linux ---
most of the pointers seemed to be devices, so I never added it. Afer
your for bug example,
Dawson Engler writes:
> -
> [UNKNOWN] I'm not sure about this: "csum_partial_*" calls the generic
> cksum routine which does guard against user pointers ---
> is this redundant paranoia in this case?
>
> /u2/engler/mc/
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 06:24:51PM -0800, Dawson Engler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote an extension to gcc that does global analysis to determine
> which pointers in 2.4.1 are ever treated as user space pointers (i.e,
> passed to copy_*_user, verify_area, etc) and then makes sure they are
> always trea
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Dawson Engler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote an extension to gcc that does global analysis to determine
> which pointers in 2.4.1 are ever treated as user space pointers (i.e,
> passed to copy_*_user, verify_area, etc) and then makes sure they are
> always treated that way.
>
>
Hi,
I wrote an extension to gcc that does global analysis to determine
which pointers in 2.4.1 are ever treated as user space pointers (i.e,
passed to copy_*_user, verify_area, etc) and then makes sure they are
always treated that way.
It found what looks to be 9 errors, and 3 cases I'm not sur
9 matches
Mail list logo
