linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm: introduce memalloc_nofs

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]

Message-ID: <20170307150956.GM28642@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:09:56 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, djwong@...nel.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, logfs@...fs.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm: introduce memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API

On Mon 06-03-17 13:22:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon,  6 Mar 2017 14:14:05 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > @@ -210,8 +210,16 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> >   *
> >   * GFP_NOIO will use direct reclaim to discard clean pages or slab pages
> >   *   that do not require the starting of any physical IO.
> > + *   Please try to avoid using this flag directly and instead use
> > + *   memalloc_noio_{save,restore} to mark the whole scope which cannot
> > + *   perform any IO with a short explanation why. All allocation requests
> > + *   will inherit GFP_NOIO implicitly.
> >   *
> >   * GFP_NOFS will use direct reclaim but will not use any filesystem interfaces.
> > + *   Please try to avoid using this flag directly and instead use
> > + *   memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} to mark the whole scope which cannot/shouldn't
> > + *   recurse into the FS layer with a short explanation why. All allocation
> > + *   requests will inherit GFP_NOFS implicitly.
> 
> I wonder if these are worth a checkpatch rule.

I am not really sure, to be honest. This may easilly end up people
replacing

do_alloc(GFP_NOFS)

with

memalloc_nofs_save()
do_alloc(GFP_KERNEL)
memalloc_nofs_restore()

which doesn't make any sense of course. From my experience, people tend
to do stupid things just to silent checkpatch warnings very often.
Moreover I believe we need to do the transition to the new api first
before we can push back on the explicit GFP_NOFS usage. Maybe then we
can think about the a checkpatch warning.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs