public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem
@ 2009-05-20 18:50 Larry H.
  2009-05-20 21:15 ` Olaf Titz
  2009-05-30 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Larry H. @ 2009-05-20 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-mm, Ingo Molnar, pageexec, faith

This patch deploys the use of the PG_sensitive page allocator flag
within the audit subsystem. It's not necessarily a high profile
target for use of this flag, but could be expected to contain
potentially sensitive information under some circumstances.

Signed-off-by: Larry H. <research@subreption.com>

---
 kernel/audit.c |    3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/audit.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/audit.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/audit.c
@@ -1061,6 +1061,9 @@ static struct audit_buffer * audit_buffe
 	}
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&audit_freelist_lock, flags);
 
+	if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE))
+		gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;
+
 	if (!ab) {
 		ab = kmalloc(sizeof(*ab), gfp_mask);
 		if (!ab)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem
  2009-05-20 18:50 [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem Larry H.
@ 2009-05-20 21:15 ` Olaf Titz
  2009-05-30 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Olaf Titz @ 2009-05-20 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

> +	if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE))
> +		gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;
> +

The condition is unnecessary. Just do the |= in all cases.

Olaf

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem
  2009-05-20 18:50 [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem Larry H.
  2009-05-20 21:15 ` Olaf Titz
@ 2009-05-30 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
  2009-05-30 17:33   ` Larry H.
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-30 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry H.; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mm, Ingo Molnar, pageexec, faith



On Wed, 20 May 2009, Larry H. wrote:
>
> +	if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE))
> +		gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;

WTF?

Why is this different from just "gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;"

		Linus

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem
  2009-05-30 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-30 17:33   ` Larry H.
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Larry H. @ 2009-05-30 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mm, Ingo Molnar, pageexec, faith

On 10:21 Sat 30 May     , Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 20 May 2009, Larry H. wrote:
> >
> > +	if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE))
> > +		gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;
> 
> WTF?

Indeed.

> Why is this different from just "gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;"

Blame anal retentiveness at the time of writing that. Surely the test
should be ditched. Looking back at that, I honestly think there might be a
place to plug the flag (in the caller) instead of doing that. I don't
think there are many places to do it, so this particular patch from the
set can be ditched and rewritten (if you want to take the selective
clearing road...)

	Larry

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2009-05-30 17:36 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-05-20 18:50 [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem Larry H.
2009-05-20 21:15 ` Olaf Titz
2009-05-30 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-30 17:33   ` Larry H.

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox