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 > 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 -mike