Re: [2.4 patch] fix for memory corruption from /proc/kcore access

2005-02-03 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
Hi Ernie, On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:19:54PM -0500, Ernie Petrides wrote: > Hi, Marcelo. A fairly nasty memory corruption potential exists when > /proc/kcore is accessed and there are at least 62 vmalloc'd areas. > > The problem is that get_kcore_size() does not properly account for > the

Re: [2.4 patch] fix for memory corruption from /proc/kcore access

2005-02-03 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
Hi Ernie, On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:19:54PM -0500, Ernie Petrides wrote: Hi, Marcelo. A fairly nasty memory corruption potential exists when /proc/kcore is accessed and there are at least 62 vmalloc'd areas. The problem is that get_kcore_size() does not properly account for the

[2.4 patch] fix for memory corruption from /proc/kcore access

2005-02-02 Thread Ernie Petrides
Hi, Marcelo. A fairly nasty memory corruption potential exists when /proc/kcore is accessed and there are at least 62 vmalloc'd areas. The problem is that get_kcore_size() does not properly account for the elf_prstatus, elf_prpsinfo, and task_struct structure sizes in the fabricated ELF header,

[2.4 patch] fix for memory corruption from /proc/kcore access

2005-02-02 Thread Ernie Petrides
Hi, Marcelo. A fairly nasty memory corruption potential exists when /proc/kcore is accessed and there are at least 62 vmalloc'd areas. The problem is that get_kcore_size() does not properly account for the elf_prstatus, elf_prpsinfo, and task_struct structure sizes in the fabricated ELF header,