linux-kernel - Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from

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:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, arjan@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from_freelist

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> That said, I do think we ought to fix SLUB not to use __GFP_FAIL for
> the higher order allocation regardless of this patch.

I agree. Within the context of SLUB, it makes absolute sense.

That's especially true since SLUB already uses __GFP_NORETRY or whatever. 

The combination of __GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_NORETRY is just insane. So your 
patch to remove __GFP_NOFAIL when adding __GFP_NORETRY is absolutely the 
ObviouslyCorrectThingToDo(tm).

Please integrate that, and take my patch too if you would (add my sign-off 
or just do your own version)? Or should I just apply them?

		Linus
--
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/