linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] slab: __GFP_ZERO is incompatible with a constructor

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: <20180410130742.GM21835@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:07:42 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] slab: __GFP_ZERO is incompatible with a constructor

On Tue 10-04-18 05:53:50, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
> 
> __GFP_ZERO requests that the object be initialised to all-zeroes,
> while the purpose of a constructor is to initialise an object to a
> particular pattern.  We cannot do both.  Add a warning to catch any
> users who mistakenly pass a __GFP_ZERO flag when allocating a slab with
> a constructor.
> 
> Fixes: d07dbea46405 ("Slab allocators: support __GFP_ZERO in all allocators")
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  mm/slab.c | 6 ++++--
>  mm/slob.c | 4 +++-
>  mm/slub.c | 6 ++++--
>  3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 38d3f4fd17d7..8b2cb7db85db 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -3313,8 +3313,10 @@ slab_alloc_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags, int nodeid,
>  	local_irq_restore(save_flags);
>  	ptr = cache_alloc_debugcheck_after(cachep, flags, ptr, caller);
>  
> -	if (unlikely(flags & __GFP_ZERO) && ptr)
> -		memset(ptr, 0, cachep->object_size);
> +	if (unlikely(flags & __GFP_ZERO) && ptr) {
> +		if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(cachep->ctor))
> +			memset(ptr, 0, cachep->object_size);
> +	}
>  
>  	slab_post_alloc_hook(cachep, flags, 1, &ptr);
>  	return ptr;

Why don't we need to cover this in slab_alloc and kmem_cache_alloc_bulk as well?

Other than that this patch makes sense to me.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs