[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707171303230.12109@nuc-kabylake>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:04:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/slub.c: add a naive detection of double free or
corruption
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:45:07PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > Add an assertion similar to "fasttop" check in GNU C Library allocator:
> > an object added to a singly linked freelist should not point to itself.
> > That helps to detect some double free errors (e.g. CVE-2017-2636) without
> > slub_debug and KASAN. Testing with hackbench doesn't show any noticeable
> > performance penalty.
>
> > {
> > + BUG_ON(object == fp); /* naive detection of double free or corruption */
> > *(void **)(object + s->offset) = fp;
> > }
>
> Is BUG() the best response to this situation? If it's a corruption, then
> yes, but if we spot a double-free, then surely we should WARN() and return
> without doing anything?
The double free debug checking already does the same thing in a more
thourough way (this one only checks if the last free was the same
address). So its duplicating a check that already exists. However, this
one is always on.
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.
