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: <20191003113506.GE8933@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:35:06 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        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 Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:41:45AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 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?

What problem exactly it is duplicating? The existing allocation
scheme here works correctly.

/Jarkko