linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slub: Potential stack overflow

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003241443520.14329@router.home>
Date:	Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:49:33 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: Potential stack overflow

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> Are we allowed to nest in these two functions ?

This is kmem_cache_close() no danger of nesting.

> These are debugging functions, what happens if kmalloc() returns NULL ?

Then you return ENOMEM and the user gets an error. We already do that in
validate_slab_cache().

Hmmm... In this case we called from list_slab_objects() which gets called
from free_partial() (which took a spinlock!) which gets called from
kmem_cache_close().

Its just a debugging aid so no problem if it fails. GFP_ATOMIC?

--
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/