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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, page_alloc: do not rely on the order of
 page_poison and init_on_alloc/free parameters
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Mateusz Nosek <mateusznosek0@gmail.com>
References: <20201026173358.14704-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20201026173358.14704-2-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <3784dac7-49cb-006b-7b9d-1244d5c59935@redhat.com>
 <9a2b88de-3c01-21d0-69ff-08643f7c4b68@suse.cz>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
Message-ID: <c14170b8-9705-f9ac-bcb0-aaa623de903d@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:58:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9a2b88de-3c01-21d0-69ff-08643f7c4b68@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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