Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 07:24:24 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] mm: SLAB freelist randomization

Yes and no. With slabinfo not being available if not root you are not sure
when you start a new SLAB. You also can't quantify the risk of another
allocation happening on a real machine under load.

It decreases the odds on a successful overflow that just requires two
allocations to follow one another. It doesn't mitigate heap overflows.


On Apr 9, 2016 7:08 AM, "lazytyped" <> wrote:
> On 4/8/16 11:03 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> > For example this attack against SLUB (also applicable against SLAB)
> > would be affected:
> >
> would it?
> - allocate a ton of shmid_kernel until you get a fresh page
> - free one of such objects (here is where your randomization comes into
> play)
> - allocate the "vulnerable" object
> - trigger the overflow
> - start "freeing" the others - one will work
> This doesn't work only in the case in which you are the last object in
> the SLUB. So what you are achieving is a 1/(pagesize/sizeof_objects)
> chance of making the attack less reliable. But I can free yet another
> object and retry, if the previous overflow didn't kill me (simplest way
> to guarantee that is to not completely fill the newly allocated SLUB
>        -   twiz

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.