linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: use unsigned long instead of void *

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: <4FBBDED6.7030600@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 13:45:42 -0500
From:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: use unsigned long instead of void *

On 05/22/2012 01:31 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:42:10AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> On 05/21/2012 09:19 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/20/2012 09:23 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>
>>>> We should use unsigned long as handle instead of void * to avoid any
>>>> confusion. Without this, users may just treat zs_malloc return value as
>>>> a pointer and try to deference it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't have agreed with you about the need for this change as people
>>> should understand a void * to be the address of some data with unknown
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> However, I recently discussed with Dan regarding his RAMster project
>>> where he assumed that the void * would be an address, and as such,
>>> 4-byte aligned.  So he has masked two bits into the two LSBs of the
>>> handle for RAMster, which doesn't work with zsmalloc since the handle is
>>> not an address.
>>>
>>> So really we do need to convey as explicitly as possible to the user
>>> that the handle is an _opaque_ value about which no assumption can be made.
>>
>>
>> Wasn't really clear here.  All that to say, I think we do need this patch.
> 
> That sounds like an Acked-by ?


Almost. I still need to know what the base is so I can apply the
patchset and at least build it before I add my Ack.

Thanks,
Seth

--
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/