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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 4 Aug 2018 07:00:35 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, jlayton@...hat.com,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] slab: __GFP_ZERO is incompatible with a
 constructor

On 08/04/2018 02:28 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 12:34 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 02:22:57PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:13:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
>>>> __GFP_ZERO requests that the object be initialised to all-zeroes,
>>>> while the purpose of a constructor is to initialise an object to a
>>>> particular pattern.  We cannot do both.  Add a warning to catch any
>>>> users who mistakenly pass a __GFP_ZERO flag when allocating a slab with
>>>> a constructor.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: d07dbea46405 ("Slab allocators: support __GFP_ZERO in all allocators")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>>>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>>>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>>>
>>> Seen with v4.18-rc7-139-gef46808 and v4.18-rc7-178-g0b5b1f9a78b5 when
>>> booting sh4 images in qemu:
>>
>> Thanks!  It's under discussion here:
>>
>> https://marc.info/?t=153301426900002&r=1&w=2
> 
> and https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg53298.html
> 
>> also reported here with a bogus backtrace:
>>
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=153305755505935&w=2
>>
>> Short version: It's a bug that's been present since 2009 and nobody
>> noticed until now.  And nobody's quite sure what the effect of this
>> bug is.

Though now it is making a lot of noise :-).

I just found two more 0-day bugs, so maybe improved testing and log messages
such as the one encountered here do help a bit.

Guenter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ