linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] IOMMU memory observability

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]

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 18:04:16 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, 
	alyssa@...enzweig.io, asahi@...ts.linux.dev, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, 
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, david@...hat.com, 
	dwmw2@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org, heiko@...ech.de, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, 
	jernej.skrabec@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com, joro@...tes.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, 
	lizefan.x@...edance.com, marcan@...can.st, mhiramat@...nel.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, 
	paulmck@...nel.org, rdunlap@...radead.org, robin.murphy@....com, samuel@...lland.org, 
	suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, sven@...npeter.dev, thierry.reding@...il.com, tj@...nel.org, 
	tomas.mudrunka@...il.com, vdumpa@...dia.com, wens@...e.org, will@...nel.org, 
	yu-cheng.yu@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] IOMMU memory observability

On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 11:29:43AM -0500, Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com> wrote:
> Thank you for taking a look at this. The two patches [1] [2] which add
> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT were sent separate from this series at request of
> reviewers:

Ah, I didn't catch that.

Though, I mean the patch 02/10 calls iommu_alloc_pages() with GFP_KERNEL
(and not a passed gfp from iommu_map).
Then patch 09/10 accounts all iommu_alloc_pages() under NR_IOMMU_PAGES.

I think there is a difference between what's shown NR_IOMMU_PAGES and
what will have __GFP_ACCOUNT because of that.

I.e. is it the intention that this difference is not subject to
limiting?

(Note: I'm not familiar with iommu code and moreover I'm only looking at
the two patch sets, not the complete code applied. So you may correct my
reasoning.)


Thanks,
Michal

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)