linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/25] lmb: Add array resizing support

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]

Date:	Tue, 11 May 2010 14:56:05 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...uxtronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
	lethal@...ux-sh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/25] lmb: Add array resizing support

On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 16:59 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> you need to pass base, base+size with lmb_double_array()
> 
> otherwise when you are using lmb_reserve(base, size), double_array()
> array could have chance to get
> new buffer that is overlapped with [base, base + size).
> 
> to keep it simple, should check_double_array() after lmb_reserve,
> lmb_add, lmb_free (yes, that need it too).
> that was suggested by Michael Ellerman.
> 

No. You may notice that I addressed this problem by moving the
call to lmb_double_array() to -after- we record the entry in
the array, so it shouldn't be able to pickup the same one.

I dislike the idea of sprinkling the check for resize everywhere at the
top level.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/