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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 14:45:20 +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 01:34:07PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 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.

Ah, Okay! I sent the patch.

Thanks,
Hyeonggon