linux-kernel - Re: slab: setup allocators earlier in the boot sequence

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:17:28 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: slab: setup allocators earlier in the boot sequence

Hi Ben,

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 17:39 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> For example, slab_is_available() didn't always exist, and so in the
> early days on powerpc, we used a mem_init_done global that is set form
> mem_init() (not perfect but works in practice). And we still have code
> using that to do the test.

Looking at powerpc arch code, can we get rid of the *_maybe_bootmem()
functions now? Or is slab initialization too late still? FWIW, I think
one simple fix on PPC is to just clear __GFP_NOWAIT in those functions
(all of them seem to be using GFP_KERNEL which is wrong during boot).

			Pekka

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/