linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] kmalloc-reclaimable caches

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: <8ed44a53-fa20-a7ff-c662-72de9a9fd9e4@suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jul 2018 11:45:02 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] kmalloc-reclaimable caches

On 07/19/2018 09:53 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> Vlastimil
> Overall the patchset looks solid to me.
> Please, feel free to add
> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>

Thanks!

> Two small nits:
> 1) The last patch is unrelated to the main idea,
> and can potentially cause ABI breakage.

Yes, that's why it's last.

> I'd separate it from the rest of the patchset.

It's not independent though because there would be conflicts. It has to
be decided if it goes before of after the rest. Putting it last in the
series makes the order clear and makes it possible to revert it in case
it does break any users, without disrupting the rest of the series.

> 2) It's actually re-opening the security issue for SLOB
> users. Is the memory overhead really big enough to
> justify that?

I assume that anyone choosing SLOB has a tiny embedded device which runs
only pre-flashed code, so that's less of an issue. If somebody can
trigger the issue remotely, there are likely also other ways to exhaust
the limited memory there?

> Thanks!