From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
"Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:08:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200617071212.GJ9499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree()
> > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree()
> > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble
> > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex.
>
> FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a
> deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last
> resort, though.
Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under
a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a
spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic()
in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can
tell those without that there is a bug here.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
dsterba@suse.cz, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
target-devel@vger.kernel.org,
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:08:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200617071212.GJ9499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree()
> > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree()
> > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble
> > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex.
>
> FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a
> deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last
> resort, though.
Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under
a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a
spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic()
in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can
tell those without that there is a bug here.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
dsterba@suse.cz, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
target-devel@vger.kernel.org,
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:08:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200617071212.GJ9499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree()
> > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree()
> > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble
> > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex.
>
> FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a
> deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last
> resort, though.
Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under
a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a
spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic()
in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can
tell those without that there is a bug here.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
dsterba@suse.cz, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
target-devel@vger.kernel.org,
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:08:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200617071212.GJ9499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree()
> > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree()
> > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble
> > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex.
>
> FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a
> deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last
> resort, though.
Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under
a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a
spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic()
in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can
tell those without that there is a bug here.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
dsterba@suse.cz, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
target-devel@vger.kernel.org,
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:08:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200617071212.GJ9499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree()
> > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree()
> > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble
> > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex.
>
> FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a
> deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last
> resort, though.
Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under
a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a
spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic()
in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can
tell those without that there is a bug here.
_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Jason A . Donenfeld"
<Jason-OnJsPKxuuEcAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
linux-btrfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
dsterba-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org,
David Howells <dhowells-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
linux-sctp-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
keyrings-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-stm32-XDFAJ8BFU24N7RejjzZ/Li2xQDfSxrLKVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org,
devel-gWbeCf7V1WCQmaza687I9mD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org,
linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
James Morris <jmorris-gx6/JNMH7DfYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
kasan-dev-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org,
linux-wpan-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Waiman Long <longman-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge-A9i7LUbDfNHQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
ecryptfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-fscrypt-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
linux-amlogic-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
virtualization-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org,
linux-integrity-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linus
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:08:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200617071212.GJ9499-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree()
> > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree()
> > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble
> > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex.
>
> FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a
> deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last
> resort, though.
Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under
a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a
spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic()
in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can
tell those without that there is a bug here.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
dsterba@suse.cz, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
target-devel@vger.kernel.org,
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:08:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200617071212.GJ9499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree()
> > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree()
> > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble
> > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex.
>
> FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a
> deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last
> resort, though.
Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under
a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a
spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic()
in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can
tell those without that there is a bug here.
_______________________________________________
linux-amlogic mailing list
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-17 11:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 203+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-16 1:57 [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive() Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] mm/slab: Use memzero_explicit() in kzfree() Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 3:30 ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-16 3:30 ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-16 3:30 ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-16 3:30 ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-16 3:30 ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-16 3:30 ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-16 3:30 ` Eric Biggers
2020-06-16 13:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 13:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 13:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 13:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 13:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 13:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 13:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:46 ` David Howells
2020-06-16 15:46 ` David Howells
2020-06-16 15:46 ` David Howells
2020-06-16 15:46 ` David Howells
2020-06-16 15:46 ` David Howells
2020-06-16 15:46 ` David Howells
2020-06-16 15:46 ` David Howells
2020-06-16 6:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-16 6:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-16 6:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-16 6:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-16 6:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-16 6:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-16 6:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-16 9:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 9:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 9:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 9:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 9:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 9:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 9:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 9:08 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 1:57 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive() Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 14:26 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 14:26 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 14:26 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 14:26 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 14:26 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 14:26 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 14:26 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] btrfs: Use kfree() in btrfs_ioctl_get_subvol_info() Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 1:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 14:48 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 14:48 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 14:48 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 14:48 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 14:48 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 14:48 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 14:48 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 15:05 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 18:53 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive() Joe Perches
2020-06-16 18:53 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-16 18:53 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-16 18:53 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-16 18:53 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-16 18:53 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-16 18:53 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-16 18:53 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-16 19:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 19:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 19:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 19:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 19:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 19:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 19:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 19:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 19:46 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-16 20:01 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 20:01 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 20:01 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 20:01 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 20:01 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 20:01 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 20:01 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 20:01 ` Waiman Long
2020-06-16 21:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-16 21:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-16 21:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-16 21:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-16 21:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-16 21:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-16 21:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-16 23:01 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 23:01 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 23:01 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 23:01 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 23:01 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 23:01 ` David Sterba
2020-06-16 23:01 ` David Sterba
2020-06-17 0:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 0:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 0:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 0:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 0:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 0:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 0:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 7:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 7:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 7:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 7:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 7:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 7:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 7:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 11:08 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2020-06-17 11:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 11:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 11:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 11:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 11:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 11:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 12:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 12:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 12:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 12:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 12:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 12:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 12:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-17 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-17 8:03 ` Jo -l
2020-06-17 8:03 ` Jo -l
2020-06-17 8:03 ` Jo -l
2020-06-17 8:03 ` Jo -l
2020-06-17 8:03 ` Jo -l
2020-06-17 8:03 ` Jo -l
2020-06-17 8:03 ` Jo -l
2020-06-17 21:31 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-17 21:31 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-17 21:31 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-17 21:31 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-17 21:31 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-17 21:31 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-17 21:31 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-17 23:12 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-17 23:12 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-17 23:12 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-17 23:12 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-17 23:12 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-17 23:12 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-17 23:12 ` Joe Perches
2020-06-17 23:12 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200617110820.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=target-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.