Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator

Larry H.
2009-05-21T19:31:01Z

On 15:17 Thu 21 May , Rik van Riel wrote:
> Sensitive to what? Allocation failures?
>
> Kidding, I read the rest of your emails. However,
> chances are whoever runs into the code later on
> will not read everything.
>
> Would GFP_CONFIDENTIAL & PG_confidential be a better
> name, since it indicates the page stores confidential
> information, which should not be leaked?

Definitely, I see your point here and this will be modified in the code.
GFP_CONFIDENTIAL and PG_confidential is more specific and won't raise
any confusion when people read the code or want to use the flags.

Thanks for the input.

Larry