linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Add __GFP_ZERO to alloc_cpumask_var

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:	Mon, 07 Dec 2015 12:26:23 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Add __GFP_ZERO to alloc_cpumask_var_node() if ptr is zero

Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> writes:
> * Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>> I don't think there are great answers here.  But adding more subtle zeroing 
>> semantics feels wrong, even if it will mostly Just Work.
>
> It's not subtle if the naming clearly reflects it (hence my suggestion to rename 
> the API) - and the status quo for on-stack allocations is zeroing anyway, so it's 
> not a big jump...

True, but we already have zalloc_cpumask_var() though if we want that?

It probably makes sense to just switch everyone to that and get rid of
the non-z one?

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/