[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJo0jXhB5Xy0fryrYPy7zN2RhSsMb0r0DPQ91dNR0zPCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:36:37 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: crypto: Kernel memory overwrite attempt detected to spans
multiple pages
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:26 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> Well, I guess I'll just add __GFP_COMP so I at least don't get spammed with
> useless bug reports.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
> But I don't think it's in any way acceptable to change the semantics of the
> kernel's page allocator but only under some obscure config option, don't
> document it anywhere, ignore the known problems for years, say that the option
> is broken anyway so it shouldn't be used, and have to exchange 15 emails to get
> anything resembling an explanation.
I understand what you mean, yeah. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about it
earlier. What do you think might help the situation as far as
documentation?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists