On Tue 04-04-17 08:46:02, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 04-04-17 10:07:23, Cristopher Lameter wrote: > >> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > >> > NAK without a proper changelog. Seriously, we do not blindly apply > >> > changes from other projects without a deep understanding of all > >> > consequences. > >> > >> Functionalitywise this is trivial. A page must be a slab page in order to > >> be able to determine the slab cache of an object. Its definitely not ok if > >> the page is not a slab page. > > > > Yes, but we do not have to blow the kernel, right? Why cannot we simply > > leak that memory? > > I can put this behind CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() instead of BUG(), which > allows the system builder to choose between WARN and BUG. Some people > absolutely want the kernel to BUG on data corruption as it could be an > attack. CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION sounds as better fit to me. This would, however require to handle the potenial corruption by returning and leaking the memory. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
