On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<han...@stressinduktion.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 23:40, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 14:31 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>
>> > > +static inline void bpf_prog_unlock_ro(struct bpf_prog *fp)
>> > > +{
>> > > + set_memory_rw((unsigned long)fp, fp->pages);
>> >
>> > why rw is needed?
>> > since fp is allocated with vmalloc, vfree doesn't need
>> > to touch the pages to free them, no?
>>
>> That assumes that vmalloc() do not have any debugging features, like
>> poisoning content before freeing, to catch some use after free.
>>
>> Lets be clean and safe, and give back same memory permission we had
>> after vmalloc()
>
> Yes, I agree. I just went down the kmemleak codepaths and we certainly
> don't want to cause issues in there if the implementation changes one
> day.
agree.
I asked, because skipping set_memory_rw() would have
removed the need for 'struct bpf_work_struct' and complexity
around it.
Simple testing looks good, so:
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@plumgrid.com>
will rebase with all of my stuff and do some more tests.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
