[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1804240818530.28016@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:29:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kvmalloc: always use vmalloc if CONFIG_DEBUG_SG
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 08:06:16PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > Some bugs (such as buffer overflows) are better detected
> > with kmalloc code, so we must test the kmalloc path too.
>
> Well now, this brings up another item for the collective TODO list --
> implement redzone checks for vmalloc. Unless this is something already
> taken care of by kasan or similar.
The kmalloc overflow testing is also not ideal - it rounds the size up to
the next slab size and detects buffer overflows only at this boundary.
Some times ago, I made a "kmalloc guard" patch that places a magic number
immediatelly after the requested size - so that it can detect overflows at
byte boundary
( https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2014-September/msg00018.html )
That patch found a bug in crypto code:
( http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1409.1/02325.html )
Mikulas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists