[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A20E601.9070405@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:53:37 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Larry H." <research@...reption.com>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, pageexec@...email.hu,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator
Hi Larry,
On 10:35 Sat 30 May, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> The GFP_SENSITIVE flag looks like a big hammer that we don't really
>> need IMHO. It seems to me that most of the actual call-sites (crypto
>> code, wireless keys, etc.) should probably just use kzfree()
>> unconditionally to make sure we don't leak sensitive data. I did not
>> look too closely but I don't think any of the sensitive kfree() calls
>> are in fastpaths so the performance impact is negligible.
Larry H. wrote:
> That's hopeless, and kzfree is broken. Like I said in my earlier reply,
> please test that yourself to see the results. Whoever wrote that ignored
> how SLAB/SLUB work and if kzfree had been used somewhere in the kernel
> before, it should have been noticed long time ago.
An open-coded version of kzfree was being used in the kernel:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=00fcf2cb6f6bb421851c3ba062c0a36760ea6e53
Can we now get to the part where you explain how it's broken because I
obviously "ignored how SLAB/SLUB works"?
Thanks!
Pekka
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists