[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:42:21 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Add additional consistency check
On Tue 04-04-17 14:13:06, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > Yes, but we do not have to blow the kernel, right? Why cannot we simply
> > leak that memory?
>
> Because it is a serious bug to attempt to free a non slab object using
> slab operations. This is often the result of memory corruption, coding
> errs etc. The system needs to stop right there.
Why when an alternative is a memory leak?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists