linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: kmemleak: take a full lowmem check in kmemleak_*

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: <CAGcnep_rWWYBr+NFYzh7wNhoenFpwbxy=15a6w5vpJAH8P1dDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:40:50 +0800
From:   patrick wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: kmemleak: take a full lowmem check in kmemleak_*_phys()

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 3:28 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:29:25 +0800 Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > The kmemleak_*_phys() apis do not check the address for lowmem's min
> > boundary, while the caller may pass an address below lowmem, which
> > will trigger an oops:
>
> Do you believe this fix should be backported into -stable kernels?

Yes, I think so. The callers may not quite know the actual address they
pass(e.g. from devicetree). So the kmemleak_*_phys() apis should guarantee
the address they finally use is in lowmem range.