linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Avoid recursive loop with 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20240425164917.8c9603387b4cce11121024a8@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:49:17 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Kees Cook
 <keescook@...omium.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David
 Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Roman Gushchin
 <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Avoid recursive loop with kmemleak

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:30:55 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:

> > > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static struct kmemleak_object *mem_pool_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
> > >
> > >       /* try the slab allocator first */
> > >       if (object_cache) {
> > > -             object = kmem_cache_alloc(object_cache, gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp));
> > > +             object = kmem_cache_alloc_noprof(object_cache, gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp));
> >
> > What do these get accounted to, or does this now pop a warning with
> > CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG?
> 
> Thanks for the fix, Kees!
> I'll look into this recursion more closely to see if there is a better
> way to break it. As a stopgap measure seems ok to me. I also think
> it's unlikely that one would use both tracking mechanisms on the same
> system.

I'd really like to start building mm-stable without having to route
around memprofiling.  How about I include Kees's patch in that for now?