linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 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: <20251120100418.76d173758d03fbc60a4299ba@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:04:18 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:03:02 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:35:26 -0800 "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > We should do a better job at enforcing gfp flags for vmalloc. Right now, we
> > have a kernel-doc for __vmalloc_node_range(), and hope callers pass in
> > supported flags. If a caller were to pass in an unsupported flag, we may
> > BUG, silently clear it, or completely ignore it.
> > 
> > If we are more proactive about enforcing gfp flags, we can making sure
> > callers know when they may be asking for unsupported behavior.
> > 
> > This patchset lets vmalloc control the incoming gfp flags, and cleans up
> > some hard to read gfp code.
> 
> For the series,
> 
> Acked-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>

Thanks.

> > 
> > ---
> > Linked rfc [1] and rfc v2[2] for convenience.
> > 
> > Patch v2 -> v3:
> >   Only changes the whitelist mask and comment in patch 1:
> 
> I'd suggest s/whitelist/allow-list/.

Yeah, it's the modern way.  But this was below the ^---$ separator so
it went away anyway.