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  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:   Sat, 22 Aug 2020 12:36:44 -0700
From:   Pascal Bouchareine <>
To:     Andrew Morton <>
Cc:,,, "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <>,
        Al Viro <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: add GFP mask param to strndup_user

Thanks for taking a look!

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:51 PM Andrew Morton <> wrote:
> Why change all existing callsites so that one callsite can pass in a
> different gfp_t?

My initial thought was to change strndup_user to use
GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT (or GFP_USER | __GFP_ACCOUNT ?) unconditionally.

(Would that work? that would be a simpler change for sure)

In the case it was not wanted, I assumed a good proportion of callers
might do the same on a case-by-case basis (esp. with regards to
enabling accounting).

> Also...
> why does strndup_user() use GFP_USER?  Nobody will be mapping the
> resulting strings into user pagetables (will they?).  This was done by
> Al's 6c2c97a24f096e32, which doesn't have a changelog :(

FWIW, I believe related to this:

It's a bit over my head (is GFP_USER cheaper?) if strndup_user needs
to follow memdup_user

> In [patch 2/2],
> +       desc = strndup_user(user_desc, SK_MAX_DESC_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> if GFP_USER is legit then shouldn't this be GFP_USER_ACCOUNT (ie,

Yes! I'll see clearer if I manage to wrap my head around what
strndup_user should do

Powered by blists - more mailing lists