linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] SLUB: Use GFP_PANIC for early-boot allocations

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: <1241797858.6311.2925.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 08 May 2009 17:50:58 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gorcunov@...nvz.org,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, mel@....ul.ie, riel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] SLUB: Use GFP_PANIC for early-boot allocations

On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 18:45 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 17:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > BUG_ON((gfp & __GFP_PANIC) && (system_state != STATE_BOOTING));
> 
> There's no technical reason not to use GFP_PANIC when system_state !=
> STATE_BOOTING so I don't think it's needed. It's just that GFP_PANIC
> (and BUG_ON) is IMHO too harsh for create_unique_id().

Shouldn't we handle every allocation failure after booting?

I think it _is_ a bug to panic on allocation failures once we're
running.

I'm really not very fond of __GFP_PANIC as it stands, it seems to
suggest its OK to ignore allocation failures, which would bring us back
to the original UNIX error handling :/

--
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/