[PATCH 1/3] mm: security: introduce the init_allocations=1 boot option

[Dave Hansen]

On 4/18/19 8:42 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> +static void poison_dont(struct kmem_cache *c, void *object)
> +{
> +	/* Do nothing. Use for caches with constructors. */
> +}
> +
>  static struct kmem_cache *create_cache(const char *name,
>  		unsigned int object_size, unsigned int align,
>  		slab_flags_t flags, unsigned int useroffset,
> @@ -381,6 +391,10 @@ static struct kmem_cache *create_cache(const char *name,
>  	s->size = s->object_size = object_size;
>  	s->align = align;
>  	s->ctor = ctor;
> +	if (ctor)
> +		s->poison_fn = poison_dont;
> +	else
> +		s->poison_fn = poison_zero;
>  	s->useroffset = useroffset;
>  	s->usersize = usersize;
>  
> @@ -974,6 +988,7 @@ void __init create_boot_cache(struct kmem_cache *s, const char *name,
>  	s->align = calculate_alignment(flags, ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN, size);
>  	s->useroffset = useroffset;
>  	s->usersize = usersize;
> +	s->poison_fn = poison_zero;

An empty indirect call is probably a pretty bad idea on systems with
retpoline.  Isn't this just a bool anyway for either calling poison_dont
or poison_zero?  Can it call anything else?