Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:33:08 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] add ksm kernel shared memory driver. |
| |
On Tue 2008-12-02 22:10:29, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:24:11 -0800 > Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com> wrote: > > > * Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:07:24 -0800 > > > Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > * Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: > > > > > > + r = !memcmp(old_digest, sha1_item->sha1val, SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE); > > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&sha1_lock); > > > > > > + if (r) { > > > > > > + char *old_addr, *new_addr; > > > > > > + old_addr = kmap_atomic(oldpage, KM_USER0); > > > > > > + new_addr = kmap_atomic(newpage, KM_USER1); > > > > > > + r = !memcmp(old_addr+PAGEHASH_LEN, new_addr+PAGEHASH_LEN, > > > > > > + PAGE_SIZE-PAGEHASH_LEN); > > > > > > > > > > NAK - this isn't guaranteed to be robust so you could end up merging > > > > > different pages one provided by a malicious attacker. > > > > > > > > I presume you're referring to the digest comparison. While there's > > > > theoretical concern of hash collision, it's mitigated by hmac(sha1) > > > > so the attacker can't brute force for known collisions. > > > > > > Using current known techniques. A random collision is just as bad news. > > > > And, just to clarify, your concern would extend to any digest based > > comparison? Or are you specifically concerned about sha1? > > Taken off list
Hmmm, list would like to know :-).
-- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |