| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:39:02 +0100 From: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com> To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@...il.com>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [2.6.35-rc6 patch] increase kmemleak robustness at boot On 28 July 2010 17:49, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote: > Daniel J Blueman wrote: >> >> I've consistently been experiencing kmemleak exhaust it's 400-entry >> early-boot buffer and disabling itself; there have been reports of >> this also, and I'm finding this on x86-64 with various debug options >> enabled. >> >> If we issue a warning and allow the buffer to wrap, we don't need to >> hit the kill-switch. While we lose track of some early potential >> leaks, it's better than no functionality. >> >> Let me know if it's acceptable, and many thanks for such an excellent >> tool, > > Is it just potential leaks that we lose or can this cause false positives? I don't get any false positives having had the buffer wrap a number of times at early-boot; not to say this can't cause any. It seems that some kernel debug options are doing heavy early-boot allocations, so getting any false-positives would likely be a triple edge case. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel J Blueman -- 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