linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] udf: reduce stack usage of udf_get

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: <20081119152622.GB29820@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:26:22 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] udf: reduce stack usage of udf_get_filename

On Tue 18-11-08 16:19:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:02:45 +0100
> Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > +	filename = kmalloc(sizeof(struct ustr), GFP_NOFS);
> 
> I suspect that we could have used the superior GFP_KERNEL everywhere in
> both these patches.  But I'll let Jan worry about that ;)
  Definitely not in the second case - that one is called from inside
readdir, lookup and symlink resolution code so that could lead to deadlocks
IMHO.
  Regarding the first case in process_sequence, that is called only from
udf_fill_super(). So there it might be safe to use GFP_KERNEL but I'm not
quite sure either... So I'd leave GFP_NOFS there.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/