linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or suspending

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:43:50 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or 
	suspending

Hi Ben,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Benjamin
Herrenschmidt<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>> That said, Nick and Ingo seem to think special-casing is questionable
>> and I haven't had green light for any of the patches yet. The gfp
>> sanitization patch adds some overhead to kmalloc() and page allocator
>> paths which is obviously a concern.
>
> Let's wait and see what Linus thinks...

Yup, lets do that.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Benjamin
Herrenschmidt<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>> So while we continue to discuss this, I'd really like to proceed with
>> the patch below. At least it should allow people to boot their kernels
>> (although it will produce warnings). I really don't want to keep other
>> people waiting for us to reach a resolution on this. Are you OK with
>> that?
>
> I don't care -how- we achieve the result I want as long as we achieve
> it, which is to remove the need for callers to care. My approach was one
> way to do it, I'm sure there's a better one. That's not the point. I'm
> too tried now to properly review your patch and I'll need to test it
> tomorrow morning, but it looks ok except for the WARN_ON maybe.

OK, the WARN_ON is there because you will get warnings for
might_sleep() et al as well.

                                        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/