On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: > > > kmalloc() is still visible in slabinfo as kmalloc-128 or so. > > > > Yes, but there's no way for users to know where the allocations came from > > if you mix them up with other kmalloc-128 call-sites. That way the number > > of private files will stay private to the user, no? Doesn't that give you even > > better protection against the infoleak? > > No, what it gives us is an obscurity, not a protection. I'm sure it > highly depends on the specific situation whether an attacker is able to > identify whether the call is from e.g. ecryptfs or from VFS. Also the > correlation between the number in slabinfo and the real private actions > still exists. IMHO a restriction of access to slab statistics is reasonable in a hardened environment. Make it dependent on CONFIG_SECURITY or some such thing? -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>