From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5CFC4167B for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 14:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3A3DE900003; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:03:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 353A4900002; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:03:20 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 242AF900003; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:03:20 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BC3900002 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:03:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF20C0A2E for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 14:03:19 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80273738118.22.6FB7473 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEBEE180012 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 14:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=none (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of hch@lst.de has no SPF policy when checking 213.95.11.211) smtp.mailfrom=hch@lst.de; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1671804198; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=i2EvGatUlU3FjG+ML7vC0J0R9ciGbProCZz8H4gfELjfSQ5wgHXT746oN4gxC9dPrYqPoa 1MDaooiiKV39ku0ZrtcBEUTKJE4WwFb8PJof6BOtxLAiCrK88eJTlWgEXkxDwQGnlYfjgQ NSBxnLoR/vsqkDsh0LOL9DNpku43Xls= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=none (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of hch@lst.de has no SPF policy when checking 213.95.11.211) smtp.mailfrom=hch@lst.de; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1671804198; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NBJ5086JIIpsJAKIEsbYTqhEjNuNbQtQEsdZiXZBVUw=; b=0Soti1O+6xBYZ7wwopZxrQ/6AaahvGcgpS0RiOcUdLXQU5MAuOB16etYrCpJgR+hIp2rog KJ1OP1dOTcwvdcZzZaFoMq0X5dwZIL4maBMdwkFVYrFjZKD9lgkV9/3O51+v9LUIoRUHG2 MZhZRdK3QEfi9ZdJYxvECzVOnsfeSvE= Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 2240568AA6; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 15:03:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 15:03:12 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andy Gross , Bjorn Andersson , Konrad Dybcio , Mathieu Poirier , Andrew Morton , Uladzislau Rezki , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] vmalloc: reject vmap with VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS Message-ID: <20221223140312.GA26826@lst.de> References: <20221223092703.61927-1-hch@lst.de> <20221223092703.61927-3-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AEBEE180012 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Stat-Signature: 1336ctsbrbqwrwb8tx9pj69dsicgx68w X-HE-Tag: 1671804197-398043 X-HE-Meta: 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 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 10:24:25AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > Might it be worth adding a specific vmap mask that explicitly indicates what > flags are permissible on vmap()? Then this could become e.g.:- > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~VM_VMAP_PERMITTED_MASK)) > return NULL; > > And would be self-documenting as to why we are disallowing flags (i.e. they are > not part of the permitted vmap mask). That's probably a good idea. It might need some time to audit for use of all the flags, though.