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: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 12:36:44 -0700 From: Pascal Bouchareine <kalou@....net> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: add GFP mask param to strndup_user Thanks for taking a look! On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:51 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > Why change all existing callsites so that one callsite can pass in a > different gfp_t? My initial thought was to change strndup_user to use GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT (or GFP_USER | __GFP_ACCOUNT ?) unconditionally. (Would that work? that would be a simpler change for sure) In the case it was not wanted, I assumed a good proportion of callers might do the same on a case-by-case basis (esp. with regards to enabling accounting). > Also... > > why does strndup_user() use GFP_USER? Nobody will be mapping the > resulting strings into user pagetables (will they?). This was done by > Al's 6c2c97a24f096e32, which doesn't have a changelog :( FWIW, I believe related to this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/6/333 It's a bit over my head (is GFP_USER cheaper?) if strndup_user needs to follow memdup_user > In [patch 2/2], > > + desc = strndup_user(user_desc, SK_MAX_DESC_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT); > > if GFP_USER is legit then shouldn't this be GFP_USER_ACCOUNT (ie, > GFP_USER|__GFP_ACCOUNT)? Yes! I'll see clearer if I manage to wrap my head around what strndup_user should do Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists