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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:07:53 -0800 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: kmemleak splat on copy_process() On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:03:43AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Tue 07-02-17 02:37:02, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > > From a quick check I do not see any leak there either. >> > >> > Then in that case what about: >> >> This just disables the kmemleak altogether which doesn't sound like a >> good idea to me. > > Only for this case, but if that is also not desirable let us debug further. > That or I think we could perhaps massage code to make it clearer to kmemleak > things are good. > I'm not seeing the issue. There should be a live pointer to stack at all times, either in a local variable or in task->stack. There's a weird window in dup_task_struct in which we're stashing away stack_vm_area, but stack itself should be okay, I think. But maybe there really is a race in which a kmemleak check right in the middle of duplicating the task struct really can't see the stack pointer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists