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]

Message-Id: <201004080809.11756.oliver@neukum.org>
Date:	Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:09:11 +0200
From:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To:	Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, 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

Am Mittwoch, 7. April 2010 17:35:51 schrieb Daniel Mack:
> > 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.

kmalloc() & friends != usb_buffer_alloc(). They do different things.
It makes no sense to unify them. If you really need an ordinary
buffer DMA will surely work on, this needs a third primitive.

	Regards
		Oliver
--
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/