Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 7 Apr 2020 15:12:55 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.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>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: Add kvfree_sensitive() for freeing sensitive data
 objects
Message-ID: <20200407221255.GM21484@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20200407200318.11711-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <0fe5dcaf078be61ef21c7f18b750c5dc14c69dd7.camel@perches.com>
 <67c51b03-192c-3006-5071-452f351aee67@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <67c51b03-192c-3006-5071-452f351aee67@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:45:45PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 4/7/20 4:31 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 16:03 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> +extern void kvfree_sensitive(const void *addr, size_t len);
> > Why should size_t len be required?
> >
> > Why not do what kzfree does and memset
> > the entire allocation? (area->size)
> 
> If the memory is really virtually mapped, the only way to find out the
> size of the object is to use find_vm_area() which can be relatively high
> cost and no simple helper function is available. On the other hand, the
> length is readily available in the callers. So passing the length
> directly to the kvfree_sensitive is simpler.

Also it lets us zero only the first N bytes of the allocation.  That might
be good for performance, if only the first N bytes of an M byte allocation
are actually sensitive.  I don't know if we have any such cases, but
they could exist.