[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110613070700.GA22659@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:07:00 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: destroy unused shmem segments
Vasiliy,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:42:52AM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> Is it some additional "safety" check or a workaround for some dubious
> race?
Neither. IIRC, I thought that this was needed, and not as a workaround,
nor because of a race. However, your analysis appears to be correct to
me. This leaves us with the following three possibilities:
- The extra code was never needed. This is unlikely because I was
adding those pieces of code based on my testing results.
- The extra code was needed for some older kernel version (maybe older
than 2.4), then forward-ported (not carefully enough to spot this).
(Most CONFIG_HARDEN_* features 2.4.x-ow date back to my patches for 2.0.)
- We're missing something now.
I think that you don't need to figure out which it is. Rather, you
need to implement the functionality for 3.0 and test it. Then do it for
RHEL6/OpenVZ as well.
> I see no explicit need of such freeing cycle in do_exit().
Yes, it appears so from your analysis.
Thanks,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
