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  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:	Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:51:58 +0400
From:	Kirill Tkhai <>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <>
CC:	<>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Vladimir Davydov <>,
	Kirill Tkhai <>
Subject: Re: introduce task_rcu_dereference?

В Чт, 23/10/2014 в 20:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov пишет:
> On 10/23, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >
> > I'm agree generic helper is better. But probe_slab_address() has a sence
> > if we know that SDBR is worse in our subject area.
> And I still think it is worse.
> > Less of code is
> > easier to support :)
> Sure, but ignoring the comments, SDBR needs the same code in
> task_rcu_dereference() ? Except, of course
> 	-	probe_slab_address(&task->sighand, sighand);
> 	+	sighand = task->sighand;
> or how do you think we can simplify it?

Ok, really, not big simplification there. Your variant is good.

> > probe_slab_address() it's not a trivial logic.
> But it already has a user. And probably it can have more.
> To me the usage of SDBR is not trivial (and confusing) in this case.
> Once again, ignoring the CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC problems it does not
> help at all.
> With or without SDBR rq->curr can be reused and we need to avoid this
> race. The fact that with SDBR it can be reused only as another instance
> of task_struct is absolutely immaterial imo.
> Not to mention that SDBR still adds some overhead while probe_slab()
> is free unless CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but this option adds a large
> slowdown anyway.
> But again, I can't really work today, perhaps I missed something.
> Perhaps you can show a better code which relies on SDBR?

No, it would be the same except probe_slab_address(). So, let's stay
on probe_slab_address() variant and fix the bug this way.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists