| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:23:37 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> Cc: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, 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 On Sat 2009-06-20 08:27:29, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 16:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Ok... GFP_KERNEL allocations normally don't fail; now they > > will. Should we at least force access to atomic reserves in such case? > > No. First, code that assumes GFP_KERNEL don't fail is stupid. Any > allocation should always be assumed to potentially fail. Stupid, yes. Uncommon? Not sure. > Then, if you start failing allocations at boot time, then you aren't > going anywhere are you ? Exactly. So boot code should have access to all the memory, right? Setting some aside for GFP_ATOMIC does not make sense in that context. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists