From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 224401F8C6 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 08:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299C03891C33 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 08:01:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 299C03891C33 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1625212878; bh=OIyf8jEyBvUsnVjGDm/jKyIoDNHL9AQAOX8M5hkqHBA=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=WLx25g0An+0wXYOpTKwAoWuhc8MLtEjAJbtxAaY66E8pxqXrN+dJ9uvOQCsmJ/m4T Y+9WuG/hSfBE/k0ukMy3d+DQKbjWTXUGqKDYQ5j/3Ut5E5VGtqExkWG9Vq+CNk4a5i MFeTPctN1gD/+Tr6iff0KKGUn6CfAy/UX7VJKu0c= Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3CFA3851C3A for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 07:57:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D3CFA3851C3A Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id l5so10626587iok.7 for ; Fri, 02 Jul 2021 00:57:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OIyf8jEyBvUsnVjGDm/jKyIoDNHL9AQAOX8M5hkqHBA=; b=MBP0NsIHSx3UVQPrqWEOmslgtz6p8IspWiqh/nh4oN05Ff6Zy+t/p5d3kHXCcTduKV Gmc4OWEweFODvHTAZTQ7paHKmrcsxzJ8asqD5Lb6gaAQbCe5FD8nfZoZaWtAaJpWj6Z3 UKMThENBx11kQVeOmsfE4CfNXFUNbIAYjLyr31M/uCo55FrrSI3d9es04gm+y1/urTf0 WU3w3vmYBPxCeZ5lk4fl/+cZ95yOKyUGmQC/W9s0DxOpNFdtElrq6BhoOLFIDdF+i3pw 7zs8sBOAw6z3yktRZUtOiW2b1ov48eYyeoYCh+ZeFlhS9zyRGdL9pF01viSXSY5vteQL Kvjw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530HDDZOW/9nBdFP/gda/UZDAY9MzfOh8v3U/oMS0Uyca1HNuRt1 obFiGBhVP3MpN5uSP5ZV/Ngzjsg0iAuytTV1Dzw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8ojNlJiH5ZN/V9Y8OKtXZGSWcGp1LApuhgIcAK7c/kxAGs+lJLDWr+HzVRR7yUC6YTMe0qlFHOUV8oRG4BjE= X-Received: by 2002:a02:cb8d:: with SMTP id u13mr3199516jap.19.1625212671251; Fri, 02 Jul 2021 00:57:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <22dd78e7-13a7-0bec-37ba-f3e32a9630ab@redhat.com> <5c6aa5c1-7962-6f05-a114-0d79c9cd9bc5@redhat.com> <0c7d951e-ef54-e521-535d-920ad76be33b@gotplt.org> In-Reply-To: <0c7d951e-ef54-e521-535d-920ad76be33b@gotplt.org> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 10:57:39 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: [PATCH] Update tcache double-free check To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eyal Itkin via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Eyal Itkin Cc: Florian Weimer , GNU C Library Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" Hi, Nice to see that this topic is still alive. As I said earlier, although my initial patch was per-thread, my later analysis convinced me that a per process solution will be a better idea. As for the benchmarking, the cost per-thread was negligible, so I don't see any potential risk with using the same solution (getrandom and all) just one time per process. Sadly, I suggest you will modify my original patch / recreate a similar solution, as I can no longer commit new code to FSF. In the time passed the approval of my original employer has expired (approval was for a single year) and I also switched work place and will have to undergo the entire legal process yet again. Given the maturity of the current draft, I suggest you will complete this feature based on my contribution (contribution that was made when it was still allowed). Without an additional similar feature in the near future, I don't see the benefit in troubling a VP for signing again the legal docs. Happy to see that this feature was not abandoned. Good luck to your all, and thanks for your enthusiasm for improving the security of such an important library. Eyal Itkin.