[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 06:59:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add kvmalloc_ab_c and kvzalloc_struct
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 07:24:47AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:18:21PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > Otherwise, yes, please. We could build a coccinelle rule for
> > > > > additional replacements...
> > > >
> > > > A potential semantic patch and the changes it generates are attached
> > > > below. Himanshu Jha helped with its development. Working on this
> > > > uncovered one bug, where the allocated array is too large, because the
> > > > size provided for it was a structure size, but actually only pointers to
> > > > that structure were to be stored in it.
> > >
> > > This is cool! Thanks for doing the coccinelle patch! Diffstat:
> > >
> > > 50 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > I find that pretty compelling. I'll repost the kvmalloc_struct patch
> > > imminently.
> >
> > Thanks. So it's OK to replace kmalloc and kzalloc, even though they
> > didn't previously consider vmalloc and even though kmalloc doesn't zero?
>
> We'll also need to replace the corresponding places where those structs
> are freed with kvfree(). Can coccinelle handle that too?
This would be harder to do 100% reliably. Coccinelle would have to rely
on the structure name or the structure type, if the free is in a different
function. But I guess that the type should be mostly reliable, since all
instances of allocations of the same type should be transformed in the
same way.
>
> > There are a few other cases that use GFP_NOFS and GFP_NOWAIT, but I didn't
> > transform those because the comment says that the flags should be
> > GFP_KERNEL based. Should those be transformed too?
>
> The problem with non-GFP_KERNEL allocations is that vmalloc may have to
> allocate page tables, which is always done with an implicit GFP_KERNEL
> allocation. There's an intent to get rid of GFP_NOFS, but that's not
> been realised yet (and I'm not sure of our strategy to eliminate it ...
> I'll send a separate email about that). I'm not sure why anything's
> trying to allocate with GFP_NOWAIT; can you send a list of those places?
drivers/dma/fsl-edma.c:
fsl_desc = kzalloc(sizeof(*fsl_desc) + sizeof(struct fsl_edma_sw_tcd) * sg_len, GFP_NOWAIT);
drivers/dma/st_fdma.c:
fdesc = kzalloc(sizeof(*fdesc) + sizeof(struct st_fdma_sw_node) * sg_len,
GFP_NOWAIT);
drivers/dma/pxa_dma.c:
sw_desc = kzalloc(sizeof(*sw_desc) + nb_hw_desc * sizeof(struct
pxad_desc_hw *), GFP_NOWAIT);
julia
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.
