Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator

Hi Larry,

On 10:35 Sat 30 May, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> The GFP_SENSITIVE flag looks like a big hammer that we don't really
>> need IMHO. It seems to me that most of the actual call-sites (crypto
>> code, wireless keys, etc.) should probably just use kzfree()
>> unconditionally to make sure we don't leak sensitive data. I did not
>> look too closely but I don't think any of the sensitive kfree() calls
>> are in fastpaths so the performance impact is negligible.

Larry H. wrote:
> That's hopeless, and kzfree is broken. Like I said in my earlier reply,
> please test that yourself to see the results. Whoever wrote that ignored
> how SLAB/SLUB work and if kzfree had been used somewhere in the kernel
> before, it should have been noticed long time ago.

An open-coded version of kzfree was being used in the kernel:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-...

Can we now get to the part where you explain how it's broken because I 
obviously "ignored how SLAB/SLUB works"?

Thanks!

			Pekka

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>