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: <20200804060633.GA7368@lst.de>
Date:   Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:06:33 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
Cc:     amit.pundir@...aro.org, hch@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, rientjes@...gle.com,
        jeremy.linton@....com, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dma-pool: Only allocate from CMA when in same
 memory zone

On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 06:09:56PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA) && (gfp & GFP_DMA))
> +		return end <= DMA_BIT_MASK(zone_dma_bits);
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32) && (gfp & GFP_DMA32))
> +		return end <= DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> +	if (gfp & GFP_KERNEL)
> +		return end > DMA_BIT_MASK(32);

So the GFP_KERNEL one here looks weird.  For one I don't think the if
line is needed at all, and it just confuses things.  Second I don't
see the need (and actually some harm) in preventing GFP_KERNEL
allocations from dipping into lower CMA areas - something that we did
support before 5.8 with the single pool.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ