linux-kernel - Re: [linux-next-20130422] Bug in SLAB?

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: <517E97BE.9070501@parallels.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:54:38 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-next-20130422] Bug in SLAB?

On 04/29/2013 07:46 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 
>> On 04/29/2013 06:59 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>> The code in kmalloc_index() creates a BUG() and preferentially should
>>> create a compile time failure when a number that is too big is passed to it.
>>>
>>> What is MAX_ORDER on the architecture?
>>
>> Returning NULL is fine, but kmalloc_index currently does not check for
>> MAX_ORDER at all.
> 
> Could easily add that and BUG() on it?
> 
We could, but now I am intrigued by the fact that the patch I sent does
not fix Tetsuo's problem. 8M should be well within MAX_ORDER
--
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/