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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:47:39 +0800
From:   Li Wang <>
To:     Martin Schwidefsky <>
        Shu Wang <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/mm: return -ENOMEM in arch_get_unmapped_area[_topdown]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Martin Schwidefsky
<> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:36:10 +0800
> Li Wang <> wrote:
>> That would be very hard to get -ENOMEM returned in crst_table_upgrade()
>> because the condition(addr + len <= TASK_SIZE) makes all 'end' value
>> is smaller/equal than 'TASK_SIZE_TASK'. So let's move it to the upper
>> layer.
> I have a hard time understanding what scenario you describe. There is no

Sorry for the typo, I was thinking about to write TASK_SIZE_MAX.

> The code in mmap.c checks for the per-task limit, 31-bit vs 64-bit.
> pgalloc.c checks for the maximum allowed address and does not care
> about the task.
>> Fixes: 8ab867cb0806 (s390/mm: fix BUG_ON in crst_table_upgrade)
>> Signed-off-by: Li Wang <>
> I don't think this patch fixes anything.

At least there is a logic error i think, after apply the patch
"s390/mm: fix BUG_ON in crst_table_upgrade",
it makes no sense to compare "if (end >= TASK_SIZE_MAX) return
-ENOMEM" in crst_table_upgrade() function.

isn't it?

Thanks for reviewing quick.

Li Wang

Powered by blists - more mailing lists