Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-1067-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0000000000000b05cd060d6b5511@google.com> <CAKEwX=OmWYivf7dg_izW8pn5s5q15+nx-vRMsV47T_qG=dep_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF8kJuPLEXEXG+4esR6MbRa3iirTrJ7-w3YCorB9iD=gnQ+G3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=PaFmreqmNrisatSN1=k2kRiYgDksgDze-t=GBD=0iJDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF8kJuPF5ACu8o1P7GqEQRb6p8QShyTVNuzrrY557g+SsddzWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=NHdr9=hUBiZhnLZyRPsp=JwN3Vkwud2XEn3=pNurYGpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f27efd2e-ac65-4f6a-b1b5-c9fb0753d871@bytedance.com> <CAGsJ_4x31mT8TXt4c7ejJoDW1yJhyNqDmJmLZrf2LxMt7Zwg2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5aff3bcf-ef36-45b3-8ac0-a4b19697419c@bytedance.com> <CAGsJ_4xuuaPnQzkkQVaRyZL6ZdwkiQ_B7_c2baNaCKVg_O7ZQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e464c55e-d03a-4df9-abef-5ece182d7a2b@bytedance.com> <CAGsJ_4xknGt5Q6vTKHdnqvXi7fKMORwXywurdN09G2uOUJzCSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4xknGt5Q6vTKHdnqvXi7fKMORwXywurdN09G2uOUJzCSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:26:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=PYK3hUzgm+qfs2sNU686RaE+_M3W4Zo_Q4mTMAgKaB2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [crypto?] general protection fault in
 scatterwalk_copychunks (5)
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>, 
	syzbot <syzbot+3eff5e51bf1db122a16e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>, 
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, 
	linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, yosryahmed@google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 3:10=E2=80=AFAM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 5:16=E2=80=AFPM Chengming Zhou
> <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your explanation! Maybe it's best for us to return to 2 page=
s
> > if no other people's comments. And this really need more documentation =
:-)

Fine by me. Hmm we're basically wasting one extra page per CPU (since
these buffers are per-CPU), correct? That's not ideal, but not *too*
bad for now I suppose...

>
> I agree. we need some doc.
>
> besides, i actually think we can skip zswap frontend if
> over-compression is really
> happening.

IIUC, zsmalloc already checked that - and most people are (or should
be) using zsmalloc for zswap anyway. I wouldn't be opposed to adding
an added layer of protection on the zswap side, but not super high
priority I'd say.