linux-kernel - Re: can a kmalloc be both GFP_ATOMIC and 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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704300551130.2275@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: can a kmalloc be both GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL at the same
 time?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

>
> On Apr 30 2007 04:46, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> >
> >> >   i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
> >> > were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
> >> > based on everything i'd read.  so i'm not sure how to interpret the
> >> > following:
> >> >
> >> > drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c:  aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct aic_dev_data), GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
> >> > drivers/message/i2o/device.c:   resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL | GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> >
> >> >   clarification?
> >>
> >> GFP_ATOMIC implies that the memory comes from the zones which
> >> GFP_KERNEL also uses.  So the above usage of GFP_KERNEL is redundant
> >> and should be removed.
> >
> >hang on ... based on an email i just got, is that reference to
> >GFP_KERNEL "redundant" or "conflicting"?  big difference there.  and
> >is the proper fix to remove "GFP_KERNEL" in both cases?
>
> include/linux/gfp.h:
> #define GFP_ATOMIC (__GFP_HIGH)
> #define GFP_KERNEL (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)
>
> So combining GFP_ATOMIC with GFP_KERNEL gives you
> "allow io, allow fs, allow waiting, and use emergency pools when it's getting
> tight"
> which to me looks like a valid, but probably unwanted combination.

... snip ...

at this point, maybe i'll just leave this in the hands of those who
know far more about it than i do.  but, while we're here, are there
any *other* combinations that wouldn't make any sense?  might as well
check for those in my cleanup script as well.

rday

p.s.  as a suggestion that borders on overkill, one could always add a
configuration debugging option that, when set, compiles code into
kmalloc() that does a sanity check on its type flag arguments.

-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/