linux-ext4 - Re: vmalloc with GFP

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: <3894056.cxOY6eVYVp@blindfold>
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:18:40 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: vmalloc with GFP_NOFS

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2018, 21:28:03 CEST schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > Also only for debugging.
> > Getting rid of vmalloc with GFP_NOFS in UBIFS is no big problem.
> > I can prepare a patch.
> 
> Cool!
> 
> Anyway, if UBIFS has some reclaim recursion critical sections in general
> it would be really great to have them documented and that is where the
> scope api is really handy. Just add the scope and document what is the
> recursion issue. This will help people reading the code as well. Ideally
> there shouldn't be any explicit GFP_NOFS in the code.

So in a perfect world a filesystem calls memalloc_nofs_save/restore and
always uses GFP_KERNEL for kmalloc/vmalloc?

Thanks,
//richard