linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/10] mm: Add vmalloc_huge

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: <ZLFdstLtPGcNsLGL@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:37:38 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, dvhart@...radead.org, dave@...olabs.net,
        andrealmeid@...lia.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        urezki@...il.com, hch@...radead.org, lstoakes@...il.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        malteskarupke@....de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/10] mm: Add vmalloc_huge_node()

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 03:39:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +void *vmalloc_huge_node(unsigned long size, gfp_t gfp_mask, int node)
> +{
> +	return __vmalloc_node_range(size, 1, VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END,
> +				    gfp_mask, PAGE_KERNEL, VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP,
> +				    node, __builtin_return_address(0));
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * vmalloc_huge - allocate virtually contiguous memory, allow huge pages
>   * @size:      allocation size
> @@ -3430,9 +3437,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(vmalloc);
>   */
>  void *vmalloc_huge(unsigned long size, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  {
> -	return __vmalloc_node_range(size, 1, VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END,
> -				    gfp_mask, PAGE_KERNEL, VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP,
> -				    NUMA_NO_NODE, __builtin_return_address(0));
> +	return vmalloc_huge_node(size, gfp_mask, NUMA_NO_NODE);
>  }

Isn't this going to result in the "caller" being always recorded as
vmalloc_huge() instead of the caller of vmalloc_huge()?