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: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:25:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvmalloc: always use vmalloc if CONFIG_DEBUG_VM On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 23-04-18 10:06:08, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > > He didn't want to fix vmalloc(GFP_NOIO) > > > > > > I don't remember that conversation, so I don't know whether I agree with > > > his reasoning or not. But we are supposed to be moving away from GFP_NOIO > > > towards marking regions with memalloc_noio_save() / restore. If you do > > > that, you won't need vmalloc(GFP_NOIO). > > > > He said the same thing a year ago. And there was small progress. 6 out of > > 27 __vmalloc calls were converted to memalloc_noio_save in a year - 5 in > > infiniband and 1 in btrfs. (the whole discussion is here > > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1706.3/04681.html ) > > Well this is not that easy. It requires a cooperation from maintainers. > I can only do as much. I've posted patches in the past and actively > bringing up this topic at LSFMM last two years... You're right - but you have chosen the uneasy path. Fixing __vmalloc code is easy and it doesn't require cooperation with maintainers. > > He refuses 15-line patch to fix GFP_NOIO bug because he believes that in 4 > > years, the kernel will be refactored and GFP_NOIO will be eliminated. Why > > does he have veto over this part of the code? I'd much rather argue with > > people who have constructive comments about fixing bugs than with him. > > I didn't NACK the patch AFAIR. I've said it is not a good idea longterm. > I would be much more willing to change my mind if you would back your > patch by a real bug report. Hacks are acceptable when we have a real > issue in hands. But if we want to fix potential issue then better make > it properly. Developers should fix bugs in advance, not to wait until a crash hapens, is analyzed and reported. What's the problem with 15-line hack? Is the problem that kernel developers would feel depressed when looking the source code? Other than harming developers' feelings, I don't see what kind of damange could that piece of code do. Mikulas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists