[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: *alloc API changes
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:27:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox <> wrote:
> > Yes. And today with kvmalloc. However, I proposed to Linus that
> > kvmalloc() shouldn't allow it -- we should have kvmalloc_large() which
> > would, but kvmalloc wouldn't. He liked that idea, so I'm going with it.
> How would we handle size calculations for _large?

I'm not sure we should, at least initially. The very few places which
need a large kvmalloc really are special and can do their own careful
checking. Because, as Linus pointed out, we shouldn't be letting the
user ask us to allocate a terabyte of RAM. We should just fail that.

let's see how those users pan out, and then see what we can offer in
terms of safety.

> > There are very, very few places which should need kvmalloc_large.
> > That's one million 8-byte pointers. If you need more than that inside
> > the kernel, you're doing something really damn weird and should do
> > something that looks obviously different.
> I'm CCing John since I remember long ago running into problems loading
> the AppArmor DFA with kmalloc and switching it to kvmalloc. John, how
> large can the DFAs for AppArmor get? Would an 8MB limit be a problem?

Great! Opinions from people who'll use this interface are exceptionally

> And do we have any large IO or network buffers >8MB?

Not that get allocated with kvmalloc ... because you can't DMA map vmalloc
(without doing some unusual contortions).

> > but I thought of another problem with array_size. We already have
> > ARRAY_SIZE and it means "the number of elements in the array".
> >
> > so ... struct_bytes(), array_bytes(), array3_bytes()?
> Maybe "calc"? struct_calc(), array_calc(), array3_calc()? This has the
> benefit of actually saying more about what it is doing, rather than
> its return value... In the end, I don't care. :)

I don't have a strong feeling on this either.

> > Keeping our focus on allocations ... do we have plain additions (as
> > opposed to multiply-and-add?) And subtraction?
> All I've seen are just rare "weird" cases of lots of mult/add. Some
> are way worse than others:
> Just having the mult/add saturation would be lovely.

Ow. My brain just oozed out of my ears.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-07 22:50    [W:0.052 / U:0.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site