linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

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: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803281232450.14670@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	penberg@...helsinki.fi, clameter@....com, rjw@...k.pl,
	pstaszewski@...com.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bunk@...nel.org, protasnb@...il.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I was planning on plugging it this way:

.. and thereby losing the point of doing it the old way.

The old way caused more warnigns, but more importantly, it caused warnings 
on machines that didn't actually _have_ highmem pages. Which is actually 
the big majority of them.

That was the whole (and only) point of the debugging! If you only test the 
page address, you lose all the coverage!

It would be better if we actually passed in the gfp_flags, and then we 
could test the __GFP_HIGH bit rather than the page address.  But for now, 
the rule is that GFP_ATOMIC and __GFP_ZERO do not work together, because 
this sanity test currently cannot work for that case.

		Linus
--
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/