[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <570914BA.8020308@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 07:42:02 -0700
From: lazytyped <lazytyped@...il.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] mm: SLAB freelist randomization
On 4/9/16 7:24 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>
> Yes and no. With slabinfo not being available if not root you are not
> sure when you start a new SLAB. You also can't quantify the risk of
> another allocation happening on a real machine under load.
>
> It decreases the odds on a successful overflow that just requires two
> allocations to follow one another. It doesn't mitigate heap overflows.
>
Both things you mention above are somehow unrelated to the freelist
randomization. But that's fine. This has no performance impact, so there
is no problem in having it (not that I would or would want to have a say
:-) ).
I was just arguing that hinting at that specific exploit as one that
would have had 'decreased' odds of exploitation didn't seem like the
best choice.
- twiz
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.
