[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:16:28 -0500
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu,
eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org,
scarybeasts@...il.com, pmoore@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
keescook@...omium.org, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 08/15] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:59:00 -0500
> Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> >> I think this gives userspace an easy way of causing page allocation
>> >> failure warnings, by permitting large kmalloc() attempts. __Add
>> >> __GFP_NOWARN?
>> >
>> > Max is 32kb. sk_attach_filter() in net/core/filter.c is worse,
>> > it allocates up to 512kb before even checking the length.
>> >
>> > What about using GFP_USER (and adding __GFP_NOWARN to GFP_USER) instead?
>>
>> It looks like GFP_USER|__GFP_NOWARN would make sense here. I'll change it.
>
> I'm not really sure why GFP_USER exists. It's very rarely used, and
> most usages are probably inappropriate. To me it means "same as
> GFP_HIGHUSER, only don't use highmem". That's relevant to blockdev
> pagecache and nothing else as far as I can tell. And good luck working
> out what the __GFP_HARDWALL does ;)
I was wildly speculating about it, but maybe I should stop doing that.
> This is a regular old allocation of kernel memory - the thing to use
> here is GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NOWARN.
Sounds good - I've just changed the patchset to that effect.
> (I'm surprised that we didn't remove __GFP_NOWARN ages ago - warning by
> default is pretty obnoxious. But the warning continues to be
> occasionally useful and false positives are rare).
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
