From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B1BC47082 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 23:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915AA6135D for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 23:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233618AbhFHXLY (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jun 2021 19:11:24 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f181.google.com ([209.85.215.181]:37887 "EHLO mail-pg1-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232208AbhFHXLY (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jun 2021 19:11:24 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f181.google.com with SMTP id t9so17811718pgn.4 for ; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 16:09:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=tsOcayd7p5kwqaMZLuvyzUWjmMCtq6s6XW4ouQcpv3A=; b=QMsOr2yQt+lG5XNDYgmPFgMNQJAvua9p+XthSAPE+eIp8BKveU8h4RyuEA7ciOfD5d WDAite/miimuOfLX+uyImyaV5lmmPxMzbY5I5fr0A/R4E1newY8zeP6EJEhA+BGgtgIH +fD5lp0/HCXcUHXxIiI7AHmIbSQaNKlQ2AnRA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=tsOcayd7p5kwqaMZLuvyzUWjmMCtq6s6XW4ouQcpv3A=; b=DiM5FNmeKWLosA/7Imlz5OqXcXD+CHmyMadE/ddkx8PdTHqhWqHPvcOYtFzLCvvSnc PO9XibnZeMtTp1ofxtbHyQ9jygv/iUEsZsb1zhzfyAoD7MsINJSkFeImgbmc1X1F1L05 80PzdRZfIDDyRE/Ib7S+hufn4PLsyUQ/Ppmtn8h1wznGlJp+xMW33g7Q+1OsT68s1tSu LsGpKwzKynWNcuhMRAt7sQ9xxtp5L4he54/ii++XVmn4uvgHyS0pMsMW4YmXic/+qPDo 3NX5y9cWh5YB/BJCPuJgUUBbiZSMNTucJPo9eqoyfLZOolg1XKwnPgIPnvKEOjEJJV1e +YaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qycPTSoARBuZSxnVZKbc1e58QWE5QH8jbc0nx4S5NFabgRhlF fwtrZKRFddYc+S1MaZygcKme9Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxdn40QcfCA8eMkWU77J6EILIfV1TmIfUiG/sD+ni3fAblwXt+tWs27PX2+QOvKae8ApCvJxA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1a4f:: with SMTP id a15mr641484pgm.136.1623193695104; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h20sm11596260pfq.83.2021.06.08.16.08.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 08 Jun 2021 16:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:08:13 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Andrew Morton Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Marco Elver , Christoph Lameter , "Lin, Zhenpeng" , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Roman Gushchin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Actually fix freelist pointer vs redzoning Message-ID: <202106081605.929AF37@keescook> References: <20210608183955.280836-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20210608135327.be8a120ba3b1686bc62e6d7e@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210608135327.be8a120ba3b1686bc62e6d7e@linux-foundation.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 01:53:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:39:52 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > > > This fixes redzoning vs the freelist pointer (both for middle-position > > and very small caches). Both are "theoretical" fixes, in that I see no > > evidence of such small-sized caches actually be used in the kernel, but > > that's no reason to let the bugs continue to exist, especially since > > people doing local development keep tripping over it. :) > > So I don't think this is suitable -stable material? Yeah, I think it's -stable material, but I'd like some bake time in -next just in case. zplin saw that there was a 2 * sizeof(void *) case that existed in the kernel that would trip over the issue. > It's a bit odd that patches 2&3 were cc:stable but #1 was not. Makes > one afraid that 2&3 might have had a dependency anyway. #1 is entirely cosmetic. It should also be fine to put into -stable, but since it had no operational impact, I figured it didn't need to be. > So I'm thinking that the whole series can just be for 5.14-rc1, in the > sent order. Unless I'm missing something big, yeah, that would be my preference too. (And -stable can pick it up then.) -- Kees Cook