linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] lkdtm: avoid calling lkdtm_do

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, 31 Jan 2012 15:35:53 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] lkdtm: avoid calling lkdtm_do_action() with spin lock held

On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Cong Wang wrote:
> @@ -323,14 +323,16 @@ static void lkdtm_do_action(enum ctype which)
>         }
>         case CT_WRITE_AFTER_FREE: {
>                 size_t len = 1024;
> -               u32 *data = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> +               u32 *data = kmalloc(len, GFP_ATOMIC);
>  
>                 kfree(data);
> -               schedule();
> +               udelay(100);
>                 memset(data, 0x78, len);
>                 break;
>         }

I can't think of why the udelay would have any positive effect here,
if the idea of the schedule was to let some other process allocate and
use the memory.

Can't you just get rid of the count_lock if you use an atomic_t for the
count and use appropriate accesses on it?

	Arnd
--
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/