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:   Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:24:12 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
To:     Kees Cook <>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <>,
        Rik van Riel <>,
        linux-crypto <>,
        Herbert Xu <>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        linux-security-module <>,
        Linux ARM <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Laura Abbott <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: testmgr - allocate buffers with __GFP_COMP

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 01:32:32PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > @@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ static int __testmgr_alloc_buf(char *buf[XBUFSIZE], int order)
> >         int i;
> >
> >         for (i = 0; i < XBUFSIZE; i++) {
> > -               buf[i] = (char *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL, order);
> > +               buf[i] = (char *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_COMP,
> > +                                                 order);
> Is there a reason __GFP_COMP isn't automatically included in all page
> allocations? (Or rather, it seems like the exception is when things
> should NOT be considered part of the same allocation, so something
> like __GFP_SINGLE should exist?.)

The question is not whether or not things should be considered part of the
same allocation.  The question is whether the allocation is of a compound
page or of N consecutive pages.  Now you're asking what the difference is,
and it's whether you need to be able to be able to call compound_head(),
compound_order(), PageTail() or use a compound_dtor.  If you don't, then
you can save some time at allocation & free by not specifying __GFP_COMP.

I'll agree this is not documented well, and maybe most multi-page
allocations do want __GFP_COMP and we should invert that bit, but
__GFP_SINGLE doesn't seem like the right antonym to __GFP_COMP to me.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists