linux-kernel - Re: slab hang on boot

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]

Message-Id: <20070515163321.744e2388.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 15 May 2007 16:33:21 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	mroos@...ux.ee, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: slab hang on boot

On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:

> @@ -86,6 +87,9 @@ static inline int kmalloc_index(int size
>  	 */
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(size == 0);
>  
> +	if (size >= (1UL << KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH))
> +		return -1;
> +

I don't quite understand why we did this.  The subsequent logic in
kmalloc_index() should return -1 for this `size' anyway.  If it doesn't,
it's bust, isn't it?

Also, afaict kmalloc_slab() will totally mishandle the -1 return value and
will return a garbage kmem_cache*, via

        return &kmalloc_caches[index];

Could you double-check it all please?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/