linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers

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: <1482255502.1984.21.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:38:22 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Anatoly Stepanov <astepanov@...udlinux.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers

On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 14:50 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 14-12-16 09:59:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 13-12-16 14:07:33, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 11:14 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Are there any more comments or objections to this patch? Is this a good
> > > > start or kv[mz]alloc has to provide a way to cover GFP_NOFS users as
> > > > well in the initial version.
> > > 
> > > Did Andrew Morton ever comment on this?
> > > I believe he was the primary objector in the past.
> > > 
> > > Last I recollect was over a year ago:
> > > 
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/7/1050
> > 
> > Let me quote:
> > : Sigh.  We've resisted doing this because vmalloc() is somewhat of a bad
> > : thing, and we don't want to make it easy for people to do bad things.
> > : 
> > : And vmalloc is bad because a) it's slow and b) it does GFP_KERNEL
> > : allocations for page tables and c) it is susceptible to arena
> > : fragmentation.
> > : 
> > : We'd prefer that people fix their junk so it doesn't depend upon large
> > : contiguous allocations.  This isn't userspace - kernel space is hostile
> > : and kernel code should be robust.
> > : 
> > : So I dunno.  Should we continue to make it a bit more awkward to use
> > : vmalloc()?  Probably that tactic isn't being very successful - people
> > : will just go ahead and open-code it.  And given the surprising amount
> > : of stuff you've placed in kvmalloc_node(), they'll implement it
> > : incorrectly...
> > : 
> > : How about we compromise: add kvmalloc_node(), but include a BUG_ON("you
> > : suck") to it?
> > 
> > While I agree with some of those points, the reality really sucks,
> > though. We have tried the same tactic with __GFP_NOFAIL and failed as
> > well. I guess we should just bite the bullet and provide an api which is
> > so common that people keep reinventing their own ways around that, many
> > times wrongly or suboptimally. BUG_ON("you suck") is just not going to
> > help much I am afraid.
> > 
> > What do you think Andrew?
> 
> So what are we going to do about this patch?

Well if Andrew doesn't object again, it should probably be applied.
Unless his silence here acts like a pocket-veto.

Andrew?  Anything to add?