[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:08:20 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: dsterba@...e.cz, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
"Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org, wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, target-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree()
> > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree()
> > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble
> > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex.
>
> FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a
> deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last
> resort, though.
Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under
a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a
spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic()
in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can
tell those without that there is a bug here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists