netdev - Re: [PATCH] Enhance AF_PACKET implementation to not require high order contiguous memory allocation (v2)

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: <AANLkTi=s9zr+yF-nr8MoHY6W6m=usR2fH=dPJx6voC34@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:07:32 -0800
From:	Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:	nhorman@...driver.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enhance AF_PACKET implementation to not require high
 order contiguous memory allocation (v2)

> +#define PGV_FROM_VMALLOC 1

Why don't we always just use vmalloc, what's the benefit of get_user_pages?

> +       /*
> +        * vmalloc failed, lets dig into swap here
> +        */
> +       *flags = 0;

probably better to *flags &= ~PGV_FROM_VMALLOC;
(since some flags could have been set before this function was called)

> +       gfp_flags &= ~__GFP_NORETRY;
> +       buffer = (char *)__get_free_pages(gfp_flags, order);

wouldn't this still cause problems because you're now requiring linear
memory again?
Would it be better to just fail at this point?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html