On Fri 21-06-19 16:10:19, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:57 AM Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > > diff --git a/mm/dmapool.c b/mm/dmapool.c > > > > index 8c94c89a6f7e..e164012d3491 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/dmapool.c > > > > +++ b/mm/dmapool.c > > > > @@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ void *dma_pool_alloc(struct dma_pool *pool, gfp_t mem_flags, > > > > #endif > > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags); > > > > > > > > - if (mem_flags & __GFP_ZERO) > > > > + if (want_init_on_alloc(mem_flags)) > > > > memset(retval, 0, pool->size); > > > > > > > > return retval; > > > > > > Don't you miss dma_pool_free and want_init_on_free? > > Agreed. > > I'll fix this and add tests for DMA pools as well. > This doesn't seem to be easy though. One needs a real DMA-capable > device to allocate using DMA pools. > On the other hand, what happens to a DMA pool when it's destroyed, > isn't it wiped by pagealloc? Yes it should be returned to the page allocator AFAIR. But it is when we are returning an object to the pool when you want to wipe the data, no? Why cannot you do it along the already existing poisoning? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
