linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

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:	Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:04:14 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
	Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thorsten Diehl <thorsten.diehl@...ibm.com>,
	Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory
> > > allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat.
> > > The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86.
> > > 
> > > To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to
> > > fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory
> > > is fragmented.
> > > 
> > > This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing
> > > /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it "fixes" other users as well,
> > > which use seq_file's single_open() interface.
> > 
> > Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective.
> > 
> > I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are.  I semi-randomly tagged them
> > for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed?
> 
> I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16
> gets released?
> If so, then that would be fine with me.

um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable backport.

We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons?
--
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/