linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] slub: fix leakage

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711031741160.10953@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Nov 2007 17:50:09 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Olivér Pintér <oliver.pntr@...il.com>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] slub: fix leakage

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Olivér Pintér wrote:
> Q: It's needed auch to 2.6.22-stable?

I guess so: though SLUB wasn't on by default in 2.6.22; and it being
only a slow leak rather than a corruption, I was less inclined to
agitate about it for releases further back.

But your question makes me realize I never even looked at 2.6.23 or
2.6.22 hereabouts, just assumed they were the same; let alone patch
or build or test them.  The patches reject as such because quite a
lot has changed around (there was no struct kmem_cache_cpu in either).

A hurried look suggests that the leakage problem was there in both,
but let's wait to hear Christoph's expert opinion.

Hugh