linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: add __alloc_vm

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:01:43 +0300
From:   Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: add __alloc_vm_area() for optimizing vmap stack

On 22.01.2018 23:51, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov
> <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
>> On 08.10.2017 12:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>
>>> This looks fine in general, but a few comments:
>>>
>>>    - can you split adding the new function from switching over the fork
>>>      codeok
>>
>>
>>>    - at least kasan and vmalloc_user/vmalloc_32_user use very similar
>>>      patterns, can you switch them over as well?
>>
>>
>> I don't see why VM_USERMAP cannot be set right at allocation.
>>
>> I'll add vm_flags argument to __vmalloc_node() and
>> pass here VM_USERMAP from vmalloc_user/vmalloc_32_user
>> in separate patch.
>>
>> KASAN is different: it allocates shadow area for area allocated for module.
>> Pointer to module area must be pushed from module_alloc().
>> This isn't worth optimization.
>>
>>>    - the new __alloc_vm_area looks very different from alloc_vm_area,
>>>      maybe it needs a better name?  vmalloc_range_area for example?
>>
>>
>> __vmalloc_area() is vacant - this most low-level, so I'll keep "__".
>>
>>>    - when you split an existing function please keep the more low-level
>>>      function on top of the higher level one that calls it.ok
> 
> Did this ever get re-sent?
> 

It seems not. Probably lost in race-condition with my vacation.
Will do.