linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs: use kmem_cache_free() for kmem

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:56:41 -0700
From:   Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@...il.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, dvyukov@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: use kmem_cache_free() for kmem_cache objects

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 09:38:31AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/13/21 01:22, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:32:25PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2021 10:43 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 01:43:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:07:20PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I audited the entire xfs (kernel) codebase and didn't find any other
> >> >> usage errors.  Thanks for the patch; I'll apply it to for-next.
> >> 
> >> Which patch, the one that started this thread and uses kmem_cache_free() instead
> >> of kfree()? I thought we said it's not the best way?
> > 
> > It's probably better to fix slob to be able to tell that a kmem_free'd
> > object actually belongs to a cache and should get freed that way, just
> > like its larger sl[ua]b cousins.
> 
> Agreed. Rustam, do you still plan to do that?

Yes, I do, thank you.

> 
> > However, even if that does come to pass, anybody /else/ who wants to
> > start(?) using XFS on a SLOB system will need this patch to fix the
> > minor papercut.  Now that I've checked the rest of the codebase, I don't
> > find it reasonable to make XFS mutually exclusive with SLOB over two
> > instances of slab cache misuse.  Hence the RVB. :)
> 
> Ok. I was just wondering because Dave's first reply was that actually you'll
> need to expand the use of kfree() instead of kmem_cache_free().
>