linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix int overflow in callers of do_shrink

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: <20180928212138.GS15710@uranus>
Date:   Sat, 29 Sep 2018 00:21:38 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, mhocko@...e.com,
        aryabinin@...tuozzo.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        jbacik@...com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix int overflow in callers of do_shrink_slab()

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:15:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> What did he report?  Was it code inspection?  Did the kernel explode? 
> etcetera.  I'm thinking that the fix should be backported but to
> determine that, we need to understand the end-user runtime effects, as
> always.  Please.

I've been investigating unrelated but and occasionally found this nit.
Look, there should be over 4G of objects scanned to have it triggered,
so I don't expect it happen in real life but better be on a safe side
and fix it.