[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:58:56 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Add additional consistency check
On Tue 04-04-17 08:46:02, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue 04-04-17 10:07:23, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >> > NAK without a proper changelog. Seriously, we do not blindly apply
> >> > changes from other projects without a deep understanding of all
> >> > consequences.
> >>
> >> Functionalitywise this is trivial. A page must be a slab page in order to
> >> be able to determine the slab cache of an object. Its definitely not ok if
> >> the page is not a slab page.
> >
> > Yes, but we do not have to blow the kernel, right? Why cannot we simply
> > leak that memory?
>
> I can put this behind CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() instead of BUG(), which
> allows the system builder to choose between WARN and BUG. Some people
> absolutely want the kernel to BUG on data corruption as it could be an
> attack.
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION sounds as better fit to me. This would, however
require to handle the potenial corruption by returning and leaking the
memory.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists