Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 17:14:20 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Cc:     hch@lst.de, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org,
        kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] proc: use vmalloc for our kernel buffer
Message-ID: <20200901151420.GA30709@lst.de>
References: <20200813210411.905010-1-josef@toxicpanda.com> <20200813210411.905010-2-josef@toxicpanda.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200813210411.905010-2-josef@toxicpanda.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 05:04:06PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Since
> 
>   sysctl: pass kernel pointers to ->proc_handler
> 
> we have been pre-allocating a buffer to copy the data from the proc
> handlers into, and then copying that to userspace.  The problem is this
> just blind kmalloc()'s the buffer size passed in from the read, which in
> the case of our 'cat' binary was 64kib.  Order-4 allocations are not
> awesome, and since we can potentially allocate up to our maximum order,
> use vmalloc for these buffers.

Maybe the subject should read ".. also use vmalloc" as we still default
to kmalloc for small allocations?

Otherwise looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>