linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] do not dereference NULL pools in pools' destroy() functions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150610020444.GA566@swordfish>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:04:44 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] do not dereference NULL pools in pools'
 destroy() functions

On (06/09/15 20:11), Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > Well I like it, even though it's going to cause a zillion little cleanup
> > patches.
> >
> > checkpatch already has a "kfree(NULL) is safe and this check is
> > probably not required" test so I guess Joe will need to get busy ;)
> >
> > I'll park these patches until after 4.1 is released - it's getting to
> > that time...
> 
> Why do this at all?

this makes things less fragile.

> I understand that kfree/kmem_cache_free can take a
> null pointer but this is the destruction of a cache and it usually
> requires multiple actions to clean things up and these actions have to be
> properly sequenced. All other processors have to stop referencing this
> cache before it can be destroyed. 

>I think failing

well, it's not just `failing', it's a NULL pointer deref.

> if someone does something strange like doing cache destruction with a
> NULL pointer is valuable.
> 

a missing check is not `something strange'. it's just happening.

(a very quick google search)
http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/PATCH-dlm-NULL-dereference-failure-kmem_cache_create--ftopict555436.html
http://linux-kernel.2935.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-2-6-30-rc6-Remove-kmem-cache-destroy-in-s3c24xx-dma-init-td460417.html
etc.

	-ss
--
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/