linux-doc.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Actually fix freelist pointer vs redzoning
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:23:33 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2010150822260.184556@www.lameter.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201015033712.1491731-1-keescook@chromium.org>

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, Kees Cook wrote:

> Note on patch 2: Christopher NAKed it, but I actually think this is a
> reasonable thing to add -- the "too small" check is only made when built
> with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, so it *is* actually possible for someone to trip
> over this directly, even if it would never make it into a released
> kernel. I see no reason to just leave this foot-gun in place, though, so
> we might as well just fix it too. (Which seems to be what Longman was
> similarly supporting, IIUC.)

Well then remove the duplication of checks. The NAK was there because it
seems that you were not aware of the existing checks.

> Anyway, if patch 2 stays NAKed, that's fine. It's entirely separable,
> and the other 2 can land. :)

Just deal with the old checks too and it will be fine.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-10-15  8:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-15  3:37 [PATCH v3 0/3] Actually fix freelist pointer vs redzoning Kees Cook
2020-10-15  3:37 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/slub: Clarify verification reporting Kees Cook
2020-10-15  3:37 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] mm/slub: Fix redzoning for small allocations Kees Cook
2020-10-15  3:37 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/slub: Actually fix freelist pointer vs redzoning Kees Cook
2020-10-15  8:23 ` Christopher Lameter [this message]
2020-10-15  9:44   ` [PATCH v3 0/3] " Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-15 22:03     ` Kees Cook

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2010150822260.184556@www.lameter.com \
    --to=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).