linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: add __alloc_vm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:51:10 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: add __alloc_vm_area() for optimizing vmap stack

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov
<khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
> On 08.10.2017 12:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>> This looks fine in general, but a few comments:
>>
>>   - can you split adding the new function from switching over the fork
>>     codeok
>
>
>>   - at least kasan and vmalloc_user/vmalloc_32_user use very similar
>>     patterns, can you switch them over as well?
>
>
> I don't see why VM_USERMAP cannot be set right at allocation.
>
> I'll add vm_flags argument to __vmalloc_node() and
> pass here VM_USERMAP from vmalloc_user/vmalloc_32_user
> in separate patch.
>
> KASAN is different: it allocates shadow area for area allocated for module.
> Pointer to module area must be pushed from module_alloc().
> This isn't worth optimization.
>
>>   - the new __alloc_vm_area looks very different from alloc_vm_area,
>>     maybe it needs a better name?  vmalloc_range_area for example?
>
>
> __vmalloc_area() is vacant - this most low-level, so I'll keep "__".
>
>>   - when you split an existing function please keep the more low-level
>>     function on top of the higher level one that calls it.ok

Did this ever get re-sent?