linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Add additional consistency check

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704171021450.28407@east.gentwo.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:22:29 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
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 <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Add additional consistency check

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:

> On Tue 11-04-17 13:59:44, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't say anything like that. Hence the proposed patch which still
> > > needs some more thinking and evaluation.
> >
> > This patch does not even affect kfree().
>
> Ehm? Are we even talking about the same thing? The whole discussion was
> to catch invalid pointers to _kfree_ and why BUG* is not the best way to
> handle that.

The patch does not do that. See my review. Invalid points to kfree are
already caught with a bug on. See kfree in mm/slub.c