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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=PYK3hUzgm+qfs2sNU686RaE+_M3W4Zo_Q4mTMAgKaB2A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:26:34 -0800 From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com> To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> Cc: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, syzbot <syzbot+3eff5e51bf1db122a16e@...kaller.appspotmail.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, yosryahmed@...gle.com Subject: Re: [syzbot] [crypto?] general protection fault in scatterwalk_copychunks (5) On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 3:10 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Chengming Zhou > <zhouchengming@...edance.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for your explanation! Maybe it's best for us to return to 2 pages > > if no other people's comments. And this really need more documentation :-) Fine by me. Hmm we're basically wasting one extra page per CPU (since these buffers are per-CPU), correct? That's not ideal, but not *too* bad for now I suppose... > > I agree. we need some doc. > > besides, i actually think we can skip zswap frontend if > over-compression is really > happening. IIUC, zsmalloc already checked that - and most people are (or should be) using zsmalloc for zswap anyway. I wouldn't be opposed to adding an added layer of protection on the zswap side, but not super high priority I'd say.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists