linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] efibc: avoid stack overflow warning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160501131348.GS2839@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:48 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	"Compostella, Jeremy" <jeremy.compostella@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efibc: avoid stack overflow warning

On Sun, 01 May, at 01:25:12AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 30 April 2016 23:46:41 Matt Fleming wrote:
> > 
> > > It's not something we'd have to worry about in practice, but it does
> > > make my patch incorrect. Should we come up with a different way to
> > > do it?
> > 
> > Jeremy proposed a patch to dynamically allocate the memory, which I
> > think is the correct way to go given that our (reasonable) assumptions
> > about reboot notifier concurrency are not guaranteed,
> > 
> >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87h9eked24.fsf@jcompost-MOBL1.tl.intel.com
> 
> Sure, that works. I considered doing it that way but it seemed more
> complicated. Please use that patch instead of mine.

Thanks Ard!