From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f70.google.com (mail-pg0-f70.google.com [74.125.83.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F526B0007 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg0-f70.google.com with SMTP id l14so3045986pgn.21 for ; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x4-v6si2147395plw.412.2018.03.08.15.05.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:05:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:05:12 -0800 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add kvmalloc_ab_c and kvzalloc_struct Message-ID: <20180308230512.GD29073@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180214182618.14627-1-willy@infradead.org> <20180214182618.14627-3-willy@infradead.org> <20180308025812.GA9082@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Julia Lawall Cc: Kees Cook , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Linux-MM , LKML , Kernel Hardening , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, Himanshu Jha 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? > 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?