linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: Detach page allocation from tpm

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: <1570020105.4999.106.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 02 Oct 2019 08:41:45 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Detach page allocation from tpm_buf

On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 16:06 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:03:46AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 16:48 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +	data_page = alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER);
> > > +	if (!data_page)
> > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +	data_ptr = kmap(data_page);
> > 
> > I don't think this is such a good idea.  On 64 bit it's no different
> > from GFP_KERNEL and on 32 bit where we do have highmem, kmap space is
> > at a premium, so doing a highmem allocation + kmap is more wasteful of
> > resources than simply doing GFP_KERNEL.  In general, you should only do
> > GFP_HIGHMEM if the page is going to be mostly used by userspace, which
> > really isn't the case here.
> 
> Changing that in this commit would be wrong even if you are right.
> After this commit has been applied it is somewhat easier to make
> best choices for allocation in each call site (probably most will
> end up using stack).

Agreed, but it could be a separate patch, prior to this one.  Why
duplicate the problem all over only to change it later?

Mimi