linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

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: <aQizSPAvNGmgpnxa@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 05:51:04 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 01:57:01PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > I did some digging and am not entirely sure what flags vmalloc does NOT
> > support. Is a better idea is to have explicitly supported flags and drop
> > all others?
> >
> Maybe we should look at it vice versa. Focus on supported flags. In the
> slab there is an adjust function which modifies the gfp and emits the warning
> if passed GFP is part of buggy mask.

Yes, explicitly whitelisting the (component)flags supported seems like
a much more maintainable approach.