On Wed, 2 Nov 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> >> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
> >> index 9653f2e..58be647 100644
> >> --- a/mm/slab.h
> >> +++ b/mm/slab.h
> >> @@ -144,6 +144,9 @@ static inline unsigned long kmem_cache_flags(unsigned long object_size,
> >>
> >> #define CACHE_CREATE_MASK (SLAB_CORE_FLAGS | SLAB_DEBUG_FLAGS | SLAB_CACHE_FLAGS)
> >>
> >> +/* Common allocator flags allowed for cache_create. */
> >> +#define SLAB_FLAGS_PERMITTED (CACHE_CREATE_MASK | SLAB_KASAN)
> >> +
> >> int __kmem_cache_shutdown(struct kmem_cache *);
> >> void __kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *);
> >> int __kmem_cache_shrink(struct kmem_cache *, bool);
> >> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> >> index 71f0b28..01d067c 100644
> >> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> >> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> >> @@ -329,6 +329,12 @@ static struct kmem_cache *create_cache(const char *name,
> >> struct kmem_cache *s;
> >> int err;
> >>
> >> + /* Do not allow allocator specific flags */
> >> + if (flags & ~SLAB_FLAGS_PERMITTED) {
> >> + err = -EINVAL;
> >> + goto out;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > Why not just flags &= SLAB_FLAGS_PERMITTED if we're concerned about this
> > like kmem_cache_create does &= CACHE_CREATE_MASK?
> >
>
> Christoph on the first version advised removing invalid flags on the
> caller and checking they are correct in kmem_cache_create. The memcg
> path putting the wrong flags is through create_cache but I still used
> this approach.
>
I think this is a rather trivial point since it doesn't matter if we clear
invalid flags on the caller or in the callee and obviously
kmem_cache_create() does it in the callee.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>