linux-kernel - Re: [PROBLEM] 2.6.22-rc2 panics on x86-64 with slub

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705211147100.26970@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2007 11:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
cc:	Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@...oo.com.au>,
	Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@...te.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] 2.6.22-rc2 panics on x86-64 with slub

On Mon, 21 May 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, sounded the same to me too: I couldn't reproduce it or see anything
> > > wrong in the code back then.  But Srihari's info about CONFIG_DEBUG_SLUB
> > > off has helped a lot: I was then able to reproduce it on my x86_64, and
> > > after a lot of staring at the code, the problem became obvious...
> > 
> > Right. The #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is at the wrong location. The best fix
> > is to moving the #ifdef otherwise the size is still wrong for the 
> > ctor case.
> 
> ? My patch did handle the ctor case.

True. I was thinking about just checking the problem case that we had 
here.

> > SLUB Debug: Fix object size calculation
> > 
> > The object size calculation is wrong if !CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG because
> > the #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is now switching off the size adjustments
> > for DESTROY_BY_RCU and ctor.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> 
> Yes, I think that should do it too.  The reason behind my repeating
> the block was to handle the case where SLAB_POISON is passed to
> kmem_cache_create, but CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is off.  But apparently
> that case would hit the BUG_ON(flags & ~CREATE_MASK), therefore
> your patch is simpler and better.  Quite a maze.

Would you ack my patch? I do not want to repeat the block.
-
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/