On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:53:20AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:42:10PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Sooner rather than later, don't we need those 8 bytes to expand from
> > atomic_t to atomic64_t _count and _mapcount? Not that we really need
> > all 64 bits of both, but I don't know how to work atomically with less.
> > (Why do I have this sneaking feeling that you're actually wanting
> > to stick something into the lower bits of page->virtual?)
>
> I wonder how close we get to overflow on ->_mapcount and ->_count.
> (untested/uncompiled).
I think the problem is that an attacker can deliberately overflow
->_count, not that it can happen innocuously. By mmaping, say, the page
of libc that contains memcpy() several million times, and forking
enough, can't you make ->_mapcount hit 0? I'm not a VM guy, I just
vaguely remember people talking about this before.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
