linux-kernel - Re: Memory allocator semantics

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.2.10.1402101304110.17517@nuc>
Date:	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:07:58 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@....fi>
cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, penberg@...nel.org, mpm@...enic.com
Subject: Re: Memory allocator semantics

On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> So to be completely honest, I don't understand what is the race in (A) that
> concerns the *memory allocator*.  I also don't what the memory allocator can
> do in (B) and (C) which look like double-free and use-after-free,
> respectively, to me. :-)

Well it seems to be some academic mind game to me.

Does an invocation of the allocator have barrier semantics or not?




--
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/