linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] use GFP_NOFS in kernel

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: <20090430141041.c167b4d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:10:41 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	fengguang.wu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, mpm@...enic.com, clameter@....com,
	mingo@...e.hu, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use GFP_NOFS in kernel_event()

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:19:33 -0400
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:

> > Somebody was going to fix this for us via lockdep annotation.
> > 
> > <adds randomly-chosen cc>
> 
> I really didn't forget this, but I can't figure out how to recreate it,
> so I don't know if my logic in the patch is sound.  The patch certainly
> will shut up the complaint.

Do you think we should merge the GFP_NOFS workaround for 2.6.30 and
fix all up nicely for 2.6.31?

GFP_NOFS isn't all that bad, really - it will work sufficiently well. 
Being able to switch it over to GFP_KERNEL later on is a pretty minor
optimisation.  But it would be bad of us to simply forget about it, so I'd
probably end up retaining a switch-back-to-GFP_KERNEL patch in -mm with
which to periodically harrass you guys ;)


--
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/