linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][mmotm]memcg: handle null dereference of mm->owner

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 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:	Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:03:24 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][mmotm]memcg: handle null dereference of mm->owner

Paul Menage wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:40 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> BTW, I have a question to Balbir and Paul. (I'm sorry I missed the discussion.)
>> Recently I wonder why we need MM_OWNER.
>>
>> - What's bad with thread's cgroup ?
> 
> Because lots of mm operations take place in a context where we don't
> have a thread pointer, and hence no cgroup.
> 

Right, Thanks! Allocating memory is not that big a problem (we usually know the
context), while freeing memory, we can't assume that current is freeing it

-- 
	Balbir
--
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/