linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090530173336.GG6535@oblivion.subreption.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 May 2009 10:33:36 -0700
From:	"Larry H." <research@...reption.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, pageexec@...email.hu,
	faith@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem

On 10:21 Sat 30 May     , Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 20 May 2009, Larry H. wrote:
> >
> > +	if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE))
> > +		gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;
> 
> WTF?

Indeed.

> Why is this different from just "gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;"

Blame anal retentiveness at the time of writing that. Surely the test
should be ditched. Looking back at that, I honestly think there might be a
place to plug the flag (in the caller) instead of doing that. I don't
think there are many places to do it, so this particular patch from the
set can be ditched and rewritten (if you want to take the selective
clearing road...)

	Larry
--
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/