On 12/03/18 21:13, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:06:17PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote: >> struct gen_pool *pmalloc_create_pool(const char *name, >> int min_alloc_order); >> int is_pmalloc_object(const void *ptr, const unsigned long n); >> bool pmalloc_prealloc(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t size); >> void *pmalloc(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t size, gfp_t gfp); >> static inline void *pzalloc(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t size, gfp_t gfp) >> static inline void *pmalloc_array(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t n, >> size_t size, gfp_t flags) >> static inline void *pcalloc(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t n, >> size_t size, gfp_t flags) >> static inline char *pstrdup(struct gen_pool *pool, const char *s, gfp_t gfp) >> int pmalloc_protect_pool(struct gen_pool *pool); >> static inline void pfree(struct gen_pool *pool, const void *addr) >> int pmalloc_destroy_pool(struct gen_pool *pool); > > Do you have users for all these functions? I'm particularly sceptical of > pfree(). The typical case is when rolling back allocations, on an error path. For example, with SELinux, the userspace provides the policy, which gets processed and converted into a policyDB, where every policy maps to several structures allocated dynamically. The allocation is not transactional. In case a policy turns out to be bad/broken, while being interpreted, those structures that were initially allocated for that policy, must be freed. Since pmalloc is meant to be a drop in replacement for k/vmalloc, it needs to provide also pfree. > To my mind, a user wants to: > > pmalloc_create(); > pmalloc(); * N > pmalloc_protect(); > ... > pmalloc_destroy(); This is the simplest case, but also the error path must be supported. > I don't mind the pstrdup, pcalloc, pmalloc_array, pzalloc variations, but All those functions turned out to be necessary when converting SELinux to pmalloc. Yes, I haven't published this code yet, but I was hoping to first be done with pmalloc and then move on to SELinux, which I suspect will be harder to chew :-/ > I don't know why you need is_pmalloc_object(). Because of hardened usercopy [1]: On 23/05/17 00:38, Kees Cook wrote: [...] > I'd like hardened usercopy to grow knowledge of these > allocations so we can bounds-check objects. Right now, mm/usercopy.c > just looks at PageSlab(page) to decide if it should do slab checks. I > think adding a check for this type of object would be very important > there. [1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/05/23/17 -- igor
