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: <20251120010303.74537-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:03:02 -0800
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

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>

> 
> ---
> 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/.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]