linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix integer overflow of VmLib

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

Message-ID: <1a647a22-e030-33d7-f81f-fccae8987610@nod.at>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 01:11:02 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        vbabka@...e.cz, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        jmarchan@...hat.com, gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix integer overflow of VmLib

Michal,

Am 05.01.2017 um 14:49 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> If you just read the documentation:
> VmLib                       size of shared library code
> 
> then 0 might suggest there are no shared libraries used and the code is
> statically linked

Which is IMHO not correct. So, the documentation needs a fix too.

>> Unless I misread the code, VmLib will honour any PROT_EXEC mapping.
>> So, a statically linked JIT will have VmLib > 0.
> 
> yes the code behaves differently and that's why I've said that the
> reported number is not correct no matter how.
> 
> Anyway, as I've said I do not see any solution without risk of
> regression while the current code is clearly wrong. If the general
> consensus is that 0 is better than explicitly documenting VmLib as the
> size of executable code and report it that way then I have no objections
> and won't stay in the way. I am not sure which poison is worse.
> 

Agreed. :-)

Thanks,
//richard