On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 25-01-17 12:15:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 01/24/2017 04:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > > > Well, I am not opposed to kvmalloc_array but I would argue that this
>> > > > conversion cannot introduce new overflow issues. The code wo
On Wed 25-01-17 12:15:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/24/2017 04:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Well, I am not opposed to kvmalloc_array but I would argue that this
> > > > conversion cannot introduce new overflow issues. The code would have
> > > > to be broken already because even though k
On 01/24/2017 04:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Well, I am not opposed to kvmalloc_array but I would argue that this
> conversion cannot introduce new overflow issues. The code would have
> to be broken already because even though kmalloc_array checks for the
> overflow but vmalloc fallback doesn't
On Fri 20-01-17 14:41:37, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/12/2017 06:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 12-01-17 09:26:09, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> >>> index 4f745
On 01/12/2017 06:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 12-01-17 09:26:09, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> index 4f74511015b8..e6bbb33d2956 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 08:33:11AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 14-01-17 12:56:32, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> [...]
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > I don't see mlx5_vzalloc in the changed list. Any reason why did you skip
> > it?
> >
> > 881 static inline void *mlx5_vzalloc(unsigned long size)
> > 8
On 12/01/2017 5:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
From: Michal Hocko
There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. allocation
requests < 64kB a
On Sat 14-01-17 12:56:32, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
[...]
> Hi Michal,
>
> I don't see mlx5_vzalloc in the changed list. Any reason why did you skip it?
>
> 881 static inline void *mlx5_vzalloc(unsigned long size)
> 882 {
> 883 void *rtn;
> 884
> 885 rtn = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERN
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 04:37:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
> instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
> not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. allo
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 08:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
> instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
> not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. allocation
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/evtchn.c b/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
> index 6890897a6f30..10f1ef582659 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
> @@ -87,18 +87,6 @@ struct user_evtchn {
> bool enabled;
> };
>
> -static evtchn_port_t *evtchn_alloc_ring(unsigned int size)
> -
On Thu 12-01-17 09:26:09, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > index 4f74511015b8..e6bbb33d2956 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > @@ -112
Ilya has noticed that I've screwed up some k[zc]alloc conversions and
didn't use the kvzalloc. This is an updated patch with some acks
collected on the way
---
>From a7b89c6d0a3c685045e37740c8f97b065f37e0a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:30:32 +0100
Subject: [
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
> instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
> not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. allocation
>
On Thu 12-01-17 17:54:34, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
> > instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
> > not considering
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
> instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
> not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. allocation
>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
> instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
> not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. allocation
>
On 01/12/2017 04:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index 4f74511015b8..e6bbb33d2956 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -1126,10 +1126,7 @@ static long kvm_s390_get_skeys(struct kvm *kvm, struct
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 04:37:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
> instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
> not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. all
From: Michal Hocko
There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
instead. The main difference to kvmalloc is that those users are usually
not considering all the aspects of the memory allocator. E.g. allocation
requests < 64kB are basically never failing and invoke OOM kille
20 matches
Mail list logo
