linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Actually fix freelist pointer vs redzoning

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: <202106081605.929AF37@keescook>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:08:13 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Lin, Zhenpeng" <zplin@....edu>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Actually fix freelist pointer vs redzoning

On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 01:53:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue,  8 Jun 2021 11:39:52 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> 
> > This fixes redzoning vs the freelist pointer (both for middle-position
> > and very small caches). Both are "theoretical" fixes, in that I see no
> > evidence of such small-sized caches actually be used in the kernel, but
> > that's no reason to let the bugs continue to exist, especially since
> > people doing local development keep tripping over it. :)
> 
> So I don't think this is suitable -stable material?

Yeah, I think it's -stable material, but I'd like some bake time in
-next just in case. zplin saw that there was a 2 * sizeof(void *) case
that existed in the kernel that would trip over the issue.

> It's a bit odd that patches 2&3 were cc:stable but #1 was not.  Makes
> one afraid that 2&3 might have had a dependency anyway.

#1 is entirely cosmetic. It should also be fine to put into -stable, but
since it had no operational impact, I figured it didn't need to be.

> So I'm thinking that the whole series can just be for 5.14-rc1, in the
> sent order.

Unless I'm missing something big, yeah, that would be my preference too.
(And -stable can pick it up then.)

-- 
Kees Cook