linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: Add support for kmem caches in DMA32 zone

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:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:34:38 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        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>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Levin Alexander <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@...ovo.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...gle.com>, yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com,
        hch@...radead.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: Add support for kmem caches in DMA32 zone

On 12/6/18 4:49 AM, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
>> So it would be fine even unchanged. The check would anyway need some
>> more love to catch the same with __GFP_DMA to be consistent and cover
>> all corner cases.
> Yes, the test is not complete. If we really wanted this to be
> accurate, we'd need to check that GFP_* exactly matches SLAB_CACHE_*.
> 
> The only problem with dropping this is test that we should restore
> GFP_DMA32 warning/errors somewhere else (as Christopher pointed out
> here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/22/430), especially for kmalloc
> case.

I meant just dropping that patch hunk, not the whole test. Then the test
stays as it is and will keep warning anyone calling kmalloc(GFP_DMA32).
It would also warn anyone calling kmem_cache_alloc(GFP_DMA32) on
SLAB_CACHE_DMA32 cache, but since the gfp can be just dropped, and you
as the only user of this so far will do that, it's fine?

> Maybe this can be done in kmalloc_slab.