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: <20181029112504.GF14127@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:25:04 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/numa: Add more vetting in numa_set_distance()

Hi John,

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:57:47PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> Currently it is acceptable to set the distance between 2 separate nodes to
> LOCAL_DISTANCE.
> 
> Reject this as it is invalid.
> 
> This change avoids a crash reported in [1].
> 
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg683304.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index 146c04c..6092e3d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -335,7 +335,8 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
>  	}
>  
>  	if ((u8)distance != distance ||
> -	    (from == to && distance != LOCAL_DISTANCE)) {
> +	    (from == to && distance != LOCAL_DISTANCE) ||
> +	    (from != to && distance == LOCAL_DISTANCE)) {

The current code here is more-or-less lifted from the x86 implementation
of numa_set_distance(). I think we should either factor out the sanity check
into a core helper or make the core code robust to these funny configurations.

Will

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ