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
| ||
|
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