linux-kernel - Re: irq lock inversion

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:	Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:13:32 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: irq lock inversion

On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 12:03 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Atomic allocs are allowed to fail.

All allocs (except __GFP_NOFAIL, but those are a deadlock waiting to
happen) are allowed to fail, !__GFP_WAIT allocs simply fail more easily.

The fact that __GFP_WAIT && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER allocations
currently don't fail but keep hammering the allocator could be
considered a bug (the recent OOM threads in fact suggest this is a
serious issue for some people).

--
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/