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  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:   Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:08:09 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <>
Cc:     Jan Kara <>, Jan Kara <>,,
        Andreas Dilger <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] quota: Prevent memory allocation recursion while
 holding dq_lock

On Mon 06-06-22 13:42:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 10:03:34AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sun 05-06-22 15:38:13, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > > As described in commit 02117b8ae9c0 ("f2fs: Set GF_NOFS in
> > > read_cache_page_gfp while doing f2fs_quota_read"), we must not enter
> > > filesystem reclaim while holding the dq_lock.  Prevent this more generally
> > > by using memalloc_nofs_save() while holding the lock.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <>
> > 
> > This is definitely a good cleanup to have and seems mostly unrelated to the
> > rest. I'll take it rightaway into my tree. Thanks for the patch!
> Thanks!  It's really a pre-requisite for the second patch; I haven't
> seen anywhere in the current codebase that will have a problem.  All
> the buffer_heads are allocated with GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOFAIL (in
> grow_dev_page()).

Yes, I understand. But as f2fs case shows, there can be fs-local
allocations that may be impacted. And it is good to have it documented in
the code that dq_lock is not reclaim safe to avoid bugs like f2fs had in
the future.

Jan Kara <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists