On Fri, 28 Jul 2017, Alexander Popov wrote: > I don't really like ignoring double-free. I think, that: > - it will hide dangerous bugs in the kernel, > - it can make some kernel exploits more stable. > I would rather add BUG_ON to set_freepointer() behind SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED. > Is > it fine?
I think Kees already added some logging output. > At the same time avoiding the consequences of some double-free errors is > better > than not doing that. It may be considered as kernel "self-healing", I don't > know. I can prepare a second patch for do_slab_free(), as you described. Would > you like it? The SLUB allocator is already self healing if you enable the option to do so on bootup (covers more than just the double free case). What you propose here is no different than that and just another way of having similar functionality. In the best case it would work the same way.
