Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:10:21 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][next] skbuff: Proactively round up to kmalloc bucket
 size
Message-ID: <202210210909.76CDB7A2@keescook>
References: <20221018093005.give.246-kees@kernel.org>
 <0ea1fc165a6c6117f982f4f135093e69cb884930.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0ea1fc165a6c6117f982f4f135093e69cb884930.camel@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:42:47AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> >  	size = SKB_DATA_ALIGN(size);
> >  	size += SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info));
> > -	data = kmalloc_reserve(size, gfp_mask, node, &pfmemalloc);
> > -	if (unlikely(!data))
> > -		goto nodata;
> 
> I'm sorry for not noticing the above in the previous iteration, but I
> think this revision will produce worse code than the V1, as
> kmalloc_reserve() now pollutes an additional register.
> 
> Why did you prefer adding an additional parameter to kmalloc_reserve()?
> I think computing the alloc_size in the caller is even more readable.
> 
> Additionally, as a matter of personal preference, I would not introduce
> an additional variable for alloc_size, just:
> 
> 	// ...
> 	size = kmalloc_size_roundup(size);
> 	data = kmalloc_reserve(size, gfp_mask, node, &pfmemalloc);
> 
> The rationale is smaller diff, and consistent style with the existing
> code where 'size' is already adjusted multiple times icrementally.

Sure, I can do that. I will respin it. :)

-- 
Kees Cook