On 28 Oct 2014 15:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:54:14 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 20 Oct 2014 15:59, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 18:45 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/fs/binfmt_misc.c b/fs/binfmt_misc.c
> > > []
> > > > @@ -323,46 +343,113 @@ static Node *create_entry(const char __user
> > > > *buffer, size_t count)
> > > []
> > > > + if (e->mask) {
> > > > + int i;
> > > > + char *masked = kmalloc(e->size,
> > > > GFP_USER);
> > >
> > > Why GFP_USER? Does it need it?
> >
> > mostly a copy & paste from earlier in this func:
> > e = kmalloc(memsize, GFP_USER);
> >
> > the code is running process context and this buffer is only for
> > debugging on behalf of the user (and is shortly freed there after), so
> > GFP_USER seemed appropriate. that said, i'm certainly not an expert
> > here, so if the convention is to use GFP_KERNEL, it's easy enough to
> > change. the kmalloc API doesn't seem to provide guidance.
>
> I can't see any reason to me using GFP_USER for these objects so how
> about
>
>
> From: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
> Subject: fs/binfmt_misc.c: use GFP_KERNEL instead of GFP_USER
>
> GFP_USER means "honour cpuset nodes-allowed beancounting". These are
> regular old kernel objects and there seems no reason to give them this
> treatment.tracing the source bits showed that as the only difference i could fine, but as to what they actually impacts, i'm not sure :). i don't think it's super critical though considering only root users can update this, so it's hard to see how it'd be abused. Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
