linux-kernel - Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems

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]

Date:	Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:35:51 +0200
From:	Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@...il.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:31:54AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:11:25PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > I vote for a clean solution, a fixup of existing implementations and
> > a clear note about how to allocate buffers for USB drivers. I believe
> > faulty allocations of this kind can explain quite a lot of problems on
> > x86_64 machines.
> 
> Yeah, I really don't want to have to change every driver in different
> ways just depending on if someone thinks it is going to need to run on
> this wierd hardware.
> 
> Alan, any objection to just using usb_buffer_alloc() for every driver?
> Or is that too much overhead?

FWIW, most drivers I've seen in the past hours use a wild mix of
kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kcalloc() and usb_buffer_alloc(). That should
really be unified.

Daniel

--
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/