Re: [PATCH] tpm: Detach page allocation from tpm_buf

[Mimi Zohar]

On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 14:35 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:41:45AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 16:06 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:03:46AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 16:48 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +	data_page = alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER);
> > > > > +	if (!data_page)
> > > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	data_ptr = kmap(data_page);
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think this is such a good idea.  On 64 bit it's no different
> > > > from GFP_KERNEL and on 32 bit where we do have highmem, kmap space is
> > > > at a premium, so doing a highmem allocation + kmap is more wasteful of
> > > > resources than simply doing GFP_KERNEL.  In general, you should only do
> > > > GFP_HIGHMEM if the page is going to be mostly used by userspace, which
> > > > really isn't the case here.
> > > 
> > > Changing that in this commit would be wrong even if you are right.
> > > After this commit has been applied it is somewhat easier to make
> > > best choices for allocation in each call site (probably most will
> > > end up using stack).
> > 
> > Agreed, but it could be a separate patch, prior to this one. ÂWhy
> > duplicate the problem all over only to change it later?
> 
> What problem exactly it is duplicating? The existing allocation
> scheme here works correctly.

In the current code "alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER)" exists in a single
function. ÂWith this patch, "alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER)" is duplicated
24 times. ÂIf it is incorrect and we shouldn't be using GFP_HIGHUSER,
as James said, then why duplicate it 24 times? ÂFix it as a separate
patch first, that could be backported if needed, and then make the
change.

Mimi