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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 18 May 2021 13:34:07 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
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 5/18/21 1:18 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> 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?

No, I thought Nathan was asking about his own proposal. I don't think Nick's
patch that adds 26 index solves the issue. Nathan's proposal fixed with '>=' is OK.

> 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
>