linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [6/13] Core maskable allocator

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <26256.1205249693@vena.lwn.net>
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:34:53 -0600
From:	corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet)
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [6/13] Core maskable allocator 

Hi, Andi,

As I dig through this patch, I find it mostly makes sense; seems like it
could be a good idea.  I did have one little API question...

> +struct page *
> +alloc_pages_mask(gfp_t gfp, unsigned size, u64 mask)
> +{
> +	unsigned long max_pfn = mask >> PAGE_SHIFT;

The "mask" parameter isn't really a mask - it's an upper bound on the
address of the allocated memory.  Might it be better to call it
"max_addr" or "limit" or "ceiling" or some such so callers understand
for sure how it's interpreted?  The use of the term "mask" throughout
the interface could maybe create a certain amount of confusion.

Thanks,

jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/