The call stack shown below is a scenario in the Linux 4.19 kernel.
Allocating memory failed where exfat fs use kmalloc_array due
to system memory fragmentation, while the u-disk was inserted
without recognition.
Devices such as u-disk using the exfat file system are pluggable and may be
insert into the system at any time.
However, long-term running systems cannot guarantee the continuity of
physical memory. Therefore, it's necessary to address this issue.
Binder:2632_6: page allocation failure: order:4,
mode:0x6040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP), nodemask=(null)
Call trace:
[242178.097582] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x4
[242178.097589] dump_stack+0xf4/0x134
[242178.097598] warn_alloc+0xd8/0x144
[242178.097603] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1364/0x1384
[242178.097608] kmalloc_order+0x2c/0x510
[242178.097612] kmalloc_order_trace+0x40/0x16c
[242178.097618] __kmalloc+0x360/0x408
[242178.097624] load_alloc_bitmap+0x160/0x284
[242178.097628] exfat_fill_super+0xa3c/0xe7c
[242178.097635] mount_bdev+0x2e8/0x3a0
[242178.097638] exfat_fs_mount+0x40/0x50
[242178.097643] mount_fs+0x138/0x2e8
[242178.097649] vfs_kern_mount+0x90/0x270
[242178.097655] do_mount+0x798/0x173c
[242178.097659] ksys_mount+0x114/0x1ac
[242178.097665] __arm64_sys_mount+0x24/0x34
[242178.097671] el0_svc_common+0xb8/0x1b8
[242178.097676] el0_svc_handler+0x74/0x90
[242178.097681] el0_svc+0x8/0x340
By analyzing the exfat code,we found that continuous physical memory is
not required here,so kvmalloc_array is used can solve this problem.
Signed-off-by: gaoming <[email protected]>
---
fs/exfat/balloc.c | 4 ++--
fs/exfat/dir.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exfat/balloc.c b/fs/exfat/balloc.c
index 9f42f25fab92..a183558cb7a0 100644
--- a/fs/exfat/balloc.c
+++ b/fs/exfat/balloc.c
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
}
sbi->map_sectors = ((need_map_size - 1) >>
(sb->s_blocksize_bits)) + 1;
- sbi->vol_amap = kmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
+ sbi->vol_amap = kvmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
sizeof(struct buffer_head *), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!sbi->vol_amap)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
while (j < i)
brelse(sbi->vol_amap[j++]);
- kfree(sbi->vol_amap);
+ kvfree(sbi->vol_amap);
sbi->vol_amap = NULL;
return -EIO;
}
diff --git a/fs/exfat/dir.c b/fs/exfat/dir.c
index 957574180a5e..5cbb78d0a2a2 100644
--- a/fs/exfat/dir.c
+++ b/fs/exfat/dir.c
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ int exfat_put_dentry_set(struct exfat_entry_set_cache *es, int sync)
brelse(es->bh[i]);
if (IS_DYNAMIC_ES(es))
- kfree(es->bh);
+ kvfree(es->bh);
return err;
}
@@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ int exfat_get_dentry_set(struct exfat_entry_set_cache *es,
num_bh = EXFAT_B_TO_BLK_ROUND_UP(off + num_entries * DENTRY_SIZE, sb);
if (num_bh > ARRAY_SIZE(es->__bh)) {
- es->bh = kmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
+ es->bh = kvmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!es->bh) {
brelse(bh);
return -ENOMEM;
--
2.17.1
2023-07-05 18:15 GMT+09:00, gaoming <[email protected]>:
> The call stack shown below is a scenario in the Linux 4.19 kernel.
> Allocating memory failed where exfat fs use kmalloc_array due
> to system memory fragmentation, while the u-disk was inserted
> without recognition.
> Devices such as u-disk using the exfat file system are pluggable and may be
> insert into the system at any time.
> However, long-term running systems cannot guarantee the continuity of
> physical memory. Therefore, it's necessary to address this issue.
>
> Binder:2632_6: page allocation failure: order:4,
> mode:0x6040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP), nodemask=(null)
> Call trace:
> [242178.097582] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x4
> [242178.097589] dump_stack+0xf4/0x134
> [242178.097598] warn_alloc+0xd8/0x144
> [242178.097603] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1364/0x1384
> [242178.097608] kmalloc_order+0x2c/0x510
> [242178.097612] kmalloc_order_trace+0x40/0x16c
> [242178.097618] __kmalloc+0x360/0x408
> [242178.097624] load_alloc_bitmap+0x160/0x284
> [242178.097628] exfat_fill_super+0xa3c/0xe7c
> [242178.097635] mount_bdev+0x2e8/0x3a0
> [242178.097638] exfat_fs_mount+0x40/0x50
> [242178.097643] mount_fs+0x138/0x2e8
> [242178.097649] vfs_kern_mount+0x90/0x270
> [242178.097655] do_mount+0x798/0x173c
> [242178.097659] ksys_mount+0x114/0x1ac
> [242178.097665] __arm64_sys_mount+0x24/0x34
> [242178.097671] el0_svc_common+0xb8/0x1b8
> [242178.097676] el0_svc_handler+0x74/0x90
> [242178.097681] el0_svc+0x8/0x340
>
> By analyzing the exfat code,we found that continuous physical memory is
> not required here,so kvmalloc_array is used can solve this problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: gaoming <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/exfat/balloc.c | 4 ++--
> fs/exfat/dir.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exfat/balloc.c b/fs/exfat/balloc.c
> index 9f42f25fab92..a183558cb7a0 100644
> --- a/fs/exfat/balloc.c
> +++ b/fs/exfat/balloc.c
> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
> }
> sbi->map_sectors = ((need_map_size - 1) >>
> (sb->s_blocksize_bits)) + 1;
> - sbi->vol_amap = kmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
> + sbi->vol_amap = kvmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
> sizeof(struct buffer_head *), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!sbi->vol_amap)
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
> while (j < i)
> brelse(sbi->vol_amap[j++]);
>
> - kfree(sbi->vol_amap);
> + kvfree(sbi->vol_amap);
> sbi->vol_amap = NULL;
> return -EIO;
> }
> diff --git a/fs/exfat/dir.c b/fs/exfat/dir.c
> index 957574180a5e..5cbb78d0a2a2 100644
> --- a/fs/exfat/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/exfat/dir.c
> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ int exfat_put_dentry_set(struct exfat_entry_set_cache
> *es, int sync)
> brelse(es->bh[i]);
>
> if (IS_DYNAMIC_ES(es))
> - kfree(es->bh);
> + kvfree(es->bh);
>
> return err;
> }
> @@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ int exfat_get_dentry_set(struct exfat_entry_set_cache
> *es,
>
> num_bh = EXFAT_B_TO_BLK_ROUND_UP(off + num_entries * DENTRY_SIZE, sb);
> if (num_bh > ARRAY_SIZE(es->__bh)) {
> - es->bh = kmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
> + es->bh = kvmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
Could you please elaborate why you change this to kvmalloc_array also?
Thanks.
> if (!es->bh) {
> brelse(bh);
> return -ENOMEM;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
exfat_get_dentry_set could be called after the u-disk have been inserted,
through exfat_find, __exfat_write_inode functions.
This could happen at any time, which scenario can not guarantee the
continuity of physical memory.
This bugfix will enhance the robustness of exfat.
Thanks.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]>
发送时间: 2023年7月7日 7:10
收件人: gaoming <[email protected]>
抄送: Sungjong Seo <[email protected]>; open list:EXFAT FILE SYSTEM <[email protected]>; open list <[email protected]>; fengbaopeng <[email protected]>; gaoxu <[email protected]>; wangfei 00014658 <[email protected]>; shenchen 00013118 <[email protected]>
主题: Re: [PATCH] exfat: use kvmalloc_array/kvfree instead of kmalloc_array/kfree
2023-07-05 18:15 GMT+09:00, gaoming <[email protected]>:
> The call stack shown below is a scenario in the Linux 4.19 kernel.
> Allocating memory failed where exfat fs use kmalloc_array due to
> system memory fragmentation, while the u-disk was inserted without
> recognition.
> Devices such as u-disk using the exfat file system are pluggable and
> may be insert into the system at any time.
> However, long-term running systems cannot guarantee the continuity of
> physical memory. Therefore, it's necessary to address this issue.
>
> Binder:2632_6: page allocation failure: order:4,
> mode:0x6040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP), nodemask=(null) Call trace:
> [242178.097582] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x4 [242178.097589]
> dump_stack+0xf4/0x134 [242178.097598] warn_alloc+0xd8/0x144
> [242178.097603] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1364/0x1384
> [242178.097608] kmalloc_order+0x2c/0x510 [242178.097612]
> kmalloc_order_trace+0x40/0x16c [242178.097618] __kmalloc+0x360/0x408
> [242178.097624] load_alloc_bitmap+0x160/0x284 [242178.097628]
> exfat_fill_super+0xa3c/0xe7c [242178.097635] mount_bdev+0x2e8/0x3a0
> [242178.097638] exfat_fs_mount+0x40/0x50 [242178.097643]
> mount_fs+0x138/0x2e8 [242178.097649] vfs_kern_mount+0x90/0x270
> [242178.097655] do_mount+0x798/0x173c [242178.097659]
> ksys_mount+0x114/0x1ac [242178.097665] __arm64_sys_mount+0x24/0x34
> [242178.097671] el0_svc_common+0xb8/0x1b8 [242178.097676]
> el0_svc_handler+0x74/0x90 [242178.097681] el0_svc+0x8/0x340
>
> By analyzing the exfat code,we found that continuous physical memory
> is not required here,so kvmalloc_array is used can solve this problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: gaoming <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/exfat/balloc.c | 4 ++--
> fs/exfat/dir.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exfat/balloc.c b/fs/exfat/balloc.c index
> 9f42f25fab92..a183558cb7a0 100644
> --- a/fs/exfat/balloc.c
> +++ b/fs/exfat/balloc.c
> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
> }
> sbi->map_sectors = ((need_map_size - 1) >>
> (sb->s_blocksize_bits)) + 1;
> - sbi->vol_amap = kmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
> + sbi->vol_amap = kvmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
> sizeof(struct buffer_head *), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!sbi->vol_amap)
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
> while (j < i)
> brelse(sbi->vol_amap[j++]);
>
> - kfree(sbi->vol_amap);
> + kvfree(sbi->vol_amap);
> sbi->vol_amap = NULL;
> return -EIO;
> }
> diff --git a/fs/exfat/dir.c b/fs/exfat/dir.c index
> 957574180a5e..5cbb78d0a2a2 100644
> --- a/fs/exfat/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/exfat/dir.c
> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ int exfat_put_dentry_set(struct
> exfat_entry_set_cache *es, int sync)
> brelse(es->bh[i]);
>
> if (IS_DYNAMIC_ES(es))
> - kfree(es->bh);
> + kvfree(es->bh);
>
> return err;
> }
> @@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ int exfat_get_dentry_set(struct
> exfat_entry_set_cache *es,
>
> num_bh = EXFAT_B_TO_BLK_ROUND_UP(off + num_entries * DENTRY_SIZE, sb);
> if (num_bh > ARRAY_SIZE(es->__bh)) {
> - es->bh = kmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
> + es->bh = kvmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
Could you please elaborate why you change this to kvmalloc_array also?
Thanks.
> if (!es->bh) {
> brelse(bh);
> return -ENOMEM;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
2023-07-07 11:27 GMT+09:00, gaoming <[email protected]>:
> exfat_get_dentry_set could be called after the u-disk have been inserted,
> through exfat_find, __exfat_write_inode functions.
> This could happen at any time, which scenario can not guarantee the
> continuity of physical memory.
> This bugfix will enhance the robustness of exfat.
I'm sorry, but I understood that it was changed even though you didn't
find any particular problem. I think there will not be issues like
allocation-bitmap allocation failures. I will delete this code and
apply it. If you don't agree, please explain how much memory is
allocated here.
Thanks.
>
> Thanks.
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]>
> 发送时间: 2023年7月7日 7:10
> 收件人: gaoming <[email protected]>
> 抄送: Sungjong Seo <[email protected]>; open list:EXFAT FILE SYSTEM
> <[email protected]>; open list <[email protected]>;
> fengbaopeng <[email protected]>; gaoxu <[email protected]>; wangfei
> 00014658 <[email protected]>; shenchen 00013118
> <[email protected]>
> 主题: Re: [PATCH] exfat: use kvmalloc_array/kvfree instead of
> kmalloc_array/kfree
>
> 2023-07-05 18:15 GMT+09:00, gaoming <[email protected]>:
>> The call stack shown below is a scenario in the Linux 4.19 kernel.
>> Allocating memory failed where exfat fs use kmalloc_array due to
>> system memory fragmentation, while the u-disk was inserted without
>> recognition.
>> Devices such as u-disk using the exfat file system are pluggable and
>> may be insert into the system at any time.
>> However, long-term running systems cannot guarantee the continuity of
>> physical memory. Therefore, it's necessary to address this issue.
>>
>> Binder:2632_6: page allocation failure: order:4,
>> mode:0x6040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP), nodemask=(null) Call trace:
>> [242178.097582] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x4 [242178.097589]
>> dump_stack+0xf4/0x134 [242178.097598] warn_alloc+0xd8/0x144
>> [242178.097603] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1364/0x1384
>> [242178.097608] kmalloc_order+0x2c/0x510 [242178.097612]
>> kmalloc_order_trace+0x40/0x16c [242178.097618] __kmalloc+0x360/0x408
>> [242178.097624] load_alloc_bitmap+0x160/0x284 [242178.097628]
>> exfat_fill_super+0xa3c/0xe7c [242178.097635] mount_bdev+0x2e8/0x3a0
>> [242178.097638] exfat_fs_mount+0x40/0x50 [242178.097643]
>> mount_fs+0x138/0x2e8 [242178.097649] vfs_kern_mount+0x90/0x270
>> [242178.097655] do_mount+0x798/0x173c [242178.097659]
>> ksys_mount+0x114/0x1ac [242178.097665] __arm64_sys_mount+0x24/0x34
>> [242178.097671] el0_svc_common+0xb8/0x1b8 [242178.097676]
>> el0_svc_handler+0x74/0x90 [242178.097681] el0_svc+0x8/0x340
>>
>> By analyzing the exfat code,we found that continuous physical memory
>> is not required here,so kvmalloc_array is used can solve this problem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: gaoming <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/exfat/balloc.c | 4 ++--
>> fs/exfat/dir.c | 4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/exfat/balloc.c b/fs/exfat/balloc.c index
>> 9f42f25fab92..a183558cb7a0 100644
>> --- a/fs/exfat/balloc.c
>> +++ b/fs/exfat/balloc.c
>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block
>> *sb,
>> }
>> sbi->map_sectors = ((need_map_size - 1) >>
>> (sb->s_blocksize_bits)) + 1;
>> - sbi->vol_amap = kmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
>> + sbi->vol_amap = kvmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
>> sizeof(struct buffer_head *), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!sbi->vol_amap)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block
>> *sb,
>> while (j < i)
>> brelse(sbi->vol_amap[j++]);
>>
>> - kfree(sbi->vol_amap);
>> + kvfree(sbi->vol_amap);
>> sbi->vol_amap = NULL;
>> return -EIO;
>> }
>> diff --git a/fs/exfat/dir.c b/fs/exfat/dir.c index
>> 957574180a5e..5cbb78d0a2a2 100644
>> --- a/fs/exfat/dir.c
>> +++ b/fs/exfat/dir.c
>> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ int exfat_put_dentry_set(struct
>> exfat_entry_set_cache *es, int sync)
>> brelse(es->bh[i]);
>>
>> if (IS_DYNAMIC_ES(es))
>> - kfree(es->bh);
>> + kvfree(es->bh);
>>
>> return err;
>> }
>> @@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ int exfat_get_dentry_set(struct
>> exfat_entry_set_cache *es,
>>
>> num_bh = EXFAT_B_TO_BLK_ROUND_UP(off + num_entries * DENTRY_SIZE, sb);
>> if (num_bh > ARRAY_SIZE(es->__bh)) {
>> - es->bh = kmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + es->bh = kvmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
> Could you please elaborate why you change this to kvmalloc_array also?
>
> Thanks.
>> if (!es->bh) {
>> brelse(bh);
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
>>
>
Ok. Just delete exfat_get_dentry_set modification.
We have checked the mem allocation size really not exceeds one page.
Thanks.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]>
发送时间: 2023年7月7日 11:46
收件人: gaoming <[email protected]>
抄送: Sungjong Seo <[email protected]>; open list:EXFAT FILE SYSTEM <[email protected]>; open list <[email protected]>; fengbaopeng <[email protected]>; gaoxu <[email protected]>; wangfei 00014658 <[email protected]>; shenchen 00013118 <[email protected]>
主题: Re: 答复: [PATCH] exfat: use kvmalloc_array/kvfree instead of kmalloc_array/kfree
2023-07-07 11:27 GMT+09:00, gaoming <[email protected]>:
> exfat_get_dentry_set could be called after the u-disk have been
> inserted, through exfat_find, __exfat_write_inode functions.
> This could happen at any time, which scenario can not guarantee the
> continuity of physical memory.
> This bugfix will enhance the robustness of exfat.
I'm sorry, but I understood that it was changed even though you didn't find any particular problem. I think there will not be issues like allocation-bitmap allocation failures. I will delete this code and apply it. If you don't agree, please explain how much memory is allocated here.
Thanks.
>
> Thanks.
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]>
> 发送时间: 2023年7月7日 7:10
> 收件人: gaoming <[email protected]>
> 抄送: Sungjong Seo <[email protected]>; open list:EXFAT FILE SYSTEM
> <[email protected]>; open list
> <[email protected]>; fengbaopeng <[email protected]>;
> gaoxu <[email protected]>; wangfei
> 00014658 <[email protected]>; shenchen 00013118
> <[email protected]>
> 主题: Re: [PATCH] exfat: use kvmalloc_array/kvfree instead of
> kmalloc_array/kfree
>
> 2023-07-05 18:15 GMT+09:00, gaoming <[email protected]>:
>> The call stack shown below is a scenario in the Linux 4.19 kernel.
>> Allocating memory failed where exfat fs use kmalloc_array due to
>> system memory fragmentation, while the u-disk was inserted without
>> recognition.
>> Devices such as u-disk using the exfat file system are pluggable and
>> may be insert into the system at any time.
>> However, long-term running systems cannot guarantee the continuity of
>> physical memory. Therefore, it's necessary to address this issue.
>>
>> Binder:2632_6: page allocation failure: order:4,
>> mode:0x6040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP), nodemask=(null) Call trace:
>> [242178.097582] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x4 [242178.097589]
>> dump_stack+0xf4/0x134 [242178.097598] warn_alloc+0xd8/0x144
>> [242178.097603] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1364/0x1384
>> [242178.097608] kmalloc_order+0x2c/0x510 [242178.097612]
>> kmalloc_order_trace+0x40/0x16c [242178.097618] __kmalloc+0x360/0x408
>> [242178.097624] load_alloc_bitmap+0x160/0x284 [242178.097628]
>> exfat_fill_super+0xa3c/0xe7c [242178.097635] mount_bdev+0x2e8/0x3a0
>> [242178.097638] exfat_fs_mount+0x40/0x50 [242178.097643]
>> mount_fs+0x138/0x2e8 [242178.097649] vfs_kern_mount+0x90/0x270
>> [242178.097655] do_mount+0x798/0x173c [242178.097659]
>> ksys_mount+0x114/0x1ac [242178.097665] __arm64_sys_mount+0x24/0x34
>> [242178.097671] el0_svc_common+0xb8/0x1b8 [242178.097676]
>> el0_svc_handler+0x74/0x90 [242178.097681] el0_svc+0x8/0x340
>>
>> By analyzing the exfat code,we found that continuous physical memory
>> is not required here,so kvmalloc_array is used can solve this problem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: gaoming <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/exfat/balloc.c | 4 ++--
>> fs/exfat/dir.c | 4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/exfat/balloc.c b/fs/exfat/balloc.c index
>> 9f42f25fab92..a183558cb7a0 100644
>> --- a/fs/exfat/balloc.c
>> +++ b/fs/exfat/balloc.c
>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block
>> *sb,
>> }
>> sbi->map_sectors = ((need_map_size - 1) >>
>> (sb->s_blocksize_bits)) + 1;
>> - sbi->vol_amap = kmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
>> + sbi->vol_amap = kvmalloc_array(sbi->map_sectors,
>> sizeof(struct buffer_head *), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!sbi->vol_amap)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int exfat_allocate_bitmap(struct super_block
>> *sb,
>> while (j < i)
>> brelse(sbi->vol_amap[j++]);
>>
>> - kfree(sbi->vol_amap);
>> + kvfree(sbi->vol_amap);
>> sbi->vol_amap = NULL;
>> return -EIO;
>> }
>> diff --git a/fs/exfat/dir.c b/fs/exfat/dir.c index
>> 957574180a5e..5cbb78d0a2a2 100644
>> --- a/fs/exfat/dir.c
>> +++ b/fs/exfat/dir.c
>> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ int exfat_put_dentry_set(struct
>> exfat_entry_set_cache *es, int sync)
>> brelse(es->bh[i]);
>>
>> if (IS_DYNAMIC_ES(es))
>> - kfree(es->bh);
>> + kvfree(es->bh);
>>
>> return err;
>> }
>> @@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ int exfat_get_dentry_set(struct
>> exfat_entry_set_cache *es,
>>
>> num_bh = EXFAT_B_TO_BLK_ROUND_UP(off + num_entries * DENTRY_SIZE, sb);
>> if (num_bh > ARRAY_SIZE(es->__bh)) {
>> - es->bh = kmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + es->bh = kvmalloc_array(num_bh, sizeof(*es->bh), GFP_KERNEL);
> Could you please elaborate why you change this to kvmalloc_array also?
>
> Thanks.
>> if (!es->bh) {
>> brelse(bh);
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
>>
>