linux-kernel - Re: [char-misc-next v3] mei: use kvmalloc for read buffer

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: <CADyq12xj8VckfYO7W5XNf4MSssBTsCSi8gcE5_RmeD+dO5Cg8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:52:53 -0400
From: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>, Oren Weil <oren.jer.weil@...el.com>, 
	Tomas Winkler <tomasw@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, 
	Rohit Agarwal <rohiagar@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [char-misc-next v3] mei: use kvmalloc for read buffer

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 8:48 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 03:31:57PM +0300, Alexander Usyskin wrote:
> > Read buffer is allocated according to max message size, reported by
> > the firmware and may reach 64K in systems with pxp client.
> > Contiguous 64k allocation may fail under memory pressure.
> > Read buffer is used as in-driver message storage and not required
> > to be contiguous.
> > Use kvmalloc to allow kernel to allocate non-contiguous memory.
> >
> > Fixes: 3030dc056459 ("mei: add wrapper for queuing control commands.")
> > Reported-by: Rohit Agarwal <rohiagar@...omium.org>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240813084542.2921300-1-rohiagar@chromium.org/
> > Tested-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org

> > ---
>
> Why is this on the -next branch?  You want this merged now, right?
>
> Again, I asked "why hasn't this been reviewed by others at Intel", and
> so I'm just going to delete this series until it has followed the
> correct Intel-internal review process.

This is a significant crash for us, any chance we can get another
reviewer from Intel?

>
> greg k-h

Thanks
Brian