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: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:49:42 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] net: don't use in_atomic() in gfp_any() Resend with cc's restored. Please DO NOT edit the Cc: line :( On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:38:55 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Solve both these problems by switching to in_interrupt(). Now, if someone > > runs a gfp_any() allocation from inside spinlock we will get the warning > > if CONFIG_PREEMPT=y. > > > static inline gfp_t gfp_any(void) > > { > > - return in_atomic() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL; > > + return in_softirq() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL; > > } > sed -i -e 's/in_softirq/in_interrupt/' ? heh, good question. I did all my testing with in_softirq() - the changelog didn't catch up. Is gfp_any() supposed to be usable from hardirq context? If so, we should use in_interrupt(). If not, we should use in_softirq(), and we'll then get might_sleep() warnings if anyone uses gfp_any() from hard irq context. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists