linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kernfs: kvmalloc xattr value instead of kmalloc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALvZod6mcoKTqi=OvyHQLbm1LszijDV-traf4Rx9oXmLSZe-Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:41:57 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc:     Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kernfs: kvmalloc xattr value instead of kmalloc

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:40 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
>
> Hi Shakeel,
>
> On Tue Mar 10, 2020 at 12:40 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:16 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not really necessary to have contiguous physical memory for xattr
> > > values. We no longer need to worry about higher order allocations
> > > failing with kvmalloc, especially because the xattr size limit is at
> > > 64K.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
> >
> >
> > The patch looks fine to me. However the commit message is too cryptic
> > i.e. hard to get the motivation behind the change.
> >
>
> Thanks for taking a look. The real reason I did it was because Tejun
> said so :).
>
> Tejun, is there a larger reason?
>

I understand the reason. I am just suggesting to rephrase it to be more clear.