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: <20140211121426.GQ4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 04:14:26 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@....fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, penberg@...nel.org, mpm@...enic.com
Subject: Re: Memory allocator semantics

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:07:58PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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?

In case (A), I don't see why the allocator should have barrier semantics
from kmalloc() to a matching kfree().  I would argue that any needed
barrier semantics must be provided by the caller.

In contrast, from kfree() to a kmalloc() returning some of the kfree()ed
memory, I believe the kfree()/kmalloc() implementation must do any needed
synchronization and ordering.  But that is a different set of examples,
for example, this one:

	CPU 0			CPU 1
	p->a = 42;		q = kmalloc(...); /* returning p */
	kfree(p);		q->a = 5;
				BUG_ON(q->a != 5);

Unlike the situation with (A), (B), and (C), in this case I believe
that it is kfree()'s and kmalloc()'s responsibility to ensure that
the BUG_ON() never triggers.

Make sense?

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/