Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: do not use KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX

From: Daniel Borkmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 00:40:28 +0100

On 12/17/2016 12:23 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:02:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Fri 16-12-16 10:02:10, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:47:21PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> From: Michal Hocko <[email-masked]>
>>>>
>>>> 01b3f52157ff ("bpf: fix allocation warnings in bpf maps and integer
>>>> overflow") has added checks for the maximum allocateable size. It
>>>> (ab)used KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX for that purpose. While this is not incorrect
>>>> it is not very clean because we already have KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE for this
>>>> very reason so let's change both checks to use KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE instead.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <[email-masked]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <[email-masked]>
>>>
>>> Nack until the patches 1 and 2 are reversed.
>>
>> I do not insist on ordering. The thing is that it shouldn't matter all
>> that much. Or are you worried about bisectability?
>
> This patch 1 strongly depends on patch 2 !
> Therefore order matters.
> The patch 1 by itself is broken.
> The commit log is saying
> '(ab)used KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX for that purpose .. use KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE instead'
> that is also incorrect. We cannot do that until KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE is fixed.
> So please change the order and fix the commit log to say that KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE
> is actually valid limit now.

Michal, please also Cc netdev on your v2. Looks like the set
originally didn't Cc it (at least I didn't see 2/2). Thanks.

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