[cgl_discussion] Some Initial Comments on DDH-Spec-0.5h.pdf
Andy Pfiffer
andyp at osdl.org
Tue Sep 24 09:59:54 PDT 2002
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 18:25, Gustafson, Geoffrey R wrote:
> You bring up a very good point about the possibility of killing N birds with
> one stone with hardening in the kernel itself. I don't know enough to
> address that, and can only suppose that maybe device-independent validation
> is very limited?
I made a quick pass over a 2.4.4 eepro100 module (I usually don't use
modules...) and here is a short list of mostly-relevant routines called
by the eepro100 driver. If you wanted to consider putting your
professional paranoia at the edges between drivers and the kernel, you
might want to make a larger list like this for a reasonable sample of
drivers.
U __const_udelay
U __ioremap
U __kfree_skb
U __release_region
U __request_region
U __this_module
U add_timer
U alloc_skb
U del_timer_sync
U eth_type_trans
U free_irq
U init_etherdev
U iomem_resource
U ioport_resource
U iounmap
U irq_stat
U jiffies
U kfree
U kmalloc
U netif_rx
U pci_alloc_consistent
U pci_enable_device
U pci_find_capability
U pci_free_consistent
U pci_read_config_word
U pci_register_driver
U pci_set_master
U pci_unregister_driver
U printk
U request_irq
U skb_over_panic
U softnet_data
U synchronize_irq
U unregister_netdev
Then, for everything that shows up on the list, take a look
at the interface for each function and see if there is insufficient
"defensive programming" going on...
Andy
More information about the cgl_discussion
mailing list