|
Message-ID: <CABqD9hYQPxdOUVhqMOskYAZmXiiF-i80jd5wb0Wyv-6tNYMzBw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:16:28 -0500 From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, pmoore@...hat.com, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org, jmorris@...ei.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 08/15] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:59:00 -0500 > Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote: > >> >> I think this gives userspace an easy way of causing page allocation >> >> failure warnings, by permitting large kmalloc() attempts. __Add >> >> __GFP_NOWARN? >> > >> > Max is 32kb. sk_attach_filter() in net/core/filter.c is worse, >> > it allocates up to 512kb before even checking the length. >> > >> > What about using GFP_USER (and adding __GFP_NOWARN to GFP_USER) instead? >> >> It looks like GFP_USER|__GFP_NOWARN would make sense here. I'll change it. > > I'm not really sure why GFP_USER exists. It's very rarely used, and > most usages are probably inappropriate. To me it means "same as > GFP_HIGHUSER, only don't use highmem". That's relevant to blockdev > pagecache and nothing else as far as I can tell. And good luck working > out what the __GFP_HARDWALL does ;) I was wildly speculating about it, but maybe I should stop doing that. > This is a regular old allocation of kernel memory - the thing to use > here is GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NOWARN. Sounds good - I've just changed the patchset to that effect. > (I'm surprised that we didn't remove __GFP_NOWARN ages ago - warning by > default is pretty obnoxious. But the warning continues to be > occasionally useful and false positives are rare). >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.