linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree lockless

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: <20080904095507.207d1091@bull.net>
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:55:07 +0200
From:	Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	dwalker@...sta.com, tinytim@...ibm.com,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, jean-pierre.dion@...l.net,
	michael@...erman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	gilles.carry@....bull.net, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree
 lockless

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:34:03 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> 
> > > >   I could not think of anything simple so far and I'm open for suggestions.
> > > 
> > > GFP_KERNEL should not fail, it will just block no ?
> > 
> >   No it won't block and will fail (returns NULL).
> 
> hrm... it used to never fail.. that may have changed. But it will
> definitely block and try very hard to push things out to make space,
> which is the whole point :-)

  Right, but it still can fail - and you're right, we're in trouble already.
Last time I dug into slab code I got lost into the maze :(

> 
> >   I will have to add that back as there is no more fallback.
> 
> Well, the must be one in the case the tree isn't initialized yet,

  

> so if
> there's an allocation failure, you may "de-initialize" it or
> something...

  There's nothing to 'de-initialize' here, or am I missing something?
radix_tree_insert() will return ENOMEM and won't insert anything.

> Or you can fallback if you don't find, as easy, probably
> easier since it shouldn't happen in practice.

  That's what I had in mind.

> 
> > > I don't know if it's worth trying to fire off a new
> > > allocation attempt later, probably not.
> > 
> >   I've been pondering with this lately, but I think that adding a linear
> > lookup fallback should be OK.
> 
> Yup.
> 

  Thanks Ben,

  Sebastien.
--
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/