linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: allow huge kvmalloc() calls if they're accounted to memcg

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <59ccbca6-72ed-7c9f-8569-233627a399d0@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 17:24:25 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        syzbot+e0de2333cbf95ea473e8@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: allow huge kvmalloc() calls if they're accounted to
 memcg

On 18/10/21 17:19, Kees Cook wrote:
> Ah, so memcg wasn't doing sanity checks?
> 
> Is there a cheap way to resolve the question "does this much memory
> exist"? The "__" versions end up lacking context for why they're "__"
> versions. I.e. do we want something more descriptive, like
> __huge_kvmalloc_node() or __unbounded_kvmalloc_node()?

No problem with that, I think "unbounded" is descriptive enough that we 
can remove the __ too.  So that would be kvmalloc_node_unbounded / 
kvmalloc_array_unbounded / kvcallc_unbounded?

Paolo