linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm, slub: change run-time assertion in kmalloc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 May 2021 20:18:14 +0900
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, rientjes@...gle.com, penberg@...nel.org,
        cl@...ux.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        naresh.kamboju@...aro.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, arnd@...db.de,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, slub: change run-time assertion in
 kmalloc_index() to compile-time

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:28:17AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 5/18/21 2:43 AM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On 5/17/2021 5:38 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:34:49PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> >>> This should work I think:
> >>
> >> compiled well with clang-10.0.1, clang-11.0.0,
> >> and gcc-10.2.0 with x86_64 default config.
> >>
> >> is the condition CONFIG_CLANG_VERSION > 110000,
> >> not including 110000 it self?
> 
> Good spot.

Thanks!

> > Ah sorry, that should definitely be >= :(
> > 
> > That is what I get for writing an email that late... in reality, it probably
> > won't matter due to the availability of 11.0.1 and 11.1.0 but it should
> > absolutely be changed.
> > 
> > I have not given Nick's patch a go yet but would something like this be
> > acceptable?
> 
> Yes.

You mean Nick's patch to added with Nathan's code?
I'm not sure we need this, but will add it if you can accept it.

I'll send fixup patch soon. tell me if I can improve
anything on it.

Thanks,
Hyeonggon