linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix SLAB freelist randomization duplicate entries

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:58:48 -0800
From:   Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix SLAB freelist randomization duplicate entries

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue,  3 Jan 2017 10:19:08 -0800 Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> This patch fixes a bug in the freelist randomization code. When a high
>> random number is used, the freelist will contain duplicate entries. It
>> will result in different allocations sharing the same chunk.
>
> Important: what are the user-visible runtime effects of the bug?

It will result in odd behaviours and crashes. It should be uncommon
but it depends on the machines. We saw it happening more often on some
machines (every few hours of running tests).

>
>> Fixes: c7ce4f60ac19 ("mm: SLAB freelist randomization")
>> Signed-off-by: John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
>
> This should have been signed off by yourself.
>
> I'm guessing that the author was in fact John?  If so, you should
> indicate this by putting his From: line at the start of the changelog.
> Otherwise, authorship will default to the sender (ie, yourself).
>

Sorry, I though the sign-off was enough. Do you want me to send a v2?

-- 
Thomas