linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] call_usermodehelper_setup() should use 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080509085731.43BD.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 09 May 2008 09:04:27 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] call_usermodehelper_setup() should use GFP_KERNEL

> KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > UMH_WAIT_EXEC and UMH_WAIT_PROC mean wait on finish of exec or process exit.
> > I can't imagine situation that exec is waitable *and* allocate isn't waitable.
> 
> Yeah, that's why I was asking about UMH_NO_WAIT, where the caller may 
> not want to wait, but the context would allow the allocation to block if 
> necessary.

sorry, I misunderstood ;)

Yeah, you are right.
but it is no regression.
I agree with my plan have improve chance, but it is better than current.



--
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/