Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, page_alloc: do not rely on the order of page_poison and init_on_alloc/free parameters | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:58:57 +0100 |
| |
On 27.10.20 10:58, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 10/27/20 10:03 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 26.10.20 18:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> Enabling page_poison=1 together with init_on_alloc=1 or init_on_free=1 produces >>> a warning in dmesg that page_poison takes precendence. However, as these >>> warnings are printed in early_param handlers for init_on_alloc/free, they are >>> not printed if page_poison is enabled later on the command line (handlers are >>> called in the order of their parameters), or when init_on_alloc/free is always >>> enabled by the respective config option - before the page_poison early param >>> handler is called, it is not considered to be enabled. This is inconsistent. >>> >>> We can remove the dependency on order by making the init_on_* parameters only >>> set a boolean variable, and postponing the evaluation after all early params >>> have been processed. Introduce a new init_mem_debugging() function for that, >>> and move the related debug_pagealloc processing there as well. >> >> init_mem_debugging() is somewhat sub-optimal - init_on_alloc=1 or >> init_on_free=1 are rather security hardening mechanisms. > > Well yeah, init_mem_debugging_and_hardening()?
Would work for me.
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |