linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*

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: <d82e647a0905171855x79850a5bv7262f9e698d8b3f7@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2009 09:55:14 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic

2009/5/18 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:13:42 +0800
> tom.leiming@...il.com wrote:
>
>> From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
>>
>> The async_schedule* may not be called in atomic contexts if out of
>> memory or if there's too much work pending already, because the
>> async function to be called may sleep.
>>
>> This patch fixes the comment of async_schedule*, and introduces
>> async_schedules*_atomic to allow them called from atomic contexts
>> safely.
>
> (sorry for the late response; have been away from most of my email for
> a few days)
>
> I like the general idea; I was hoping to do it a little bit different
> though, API wise.
> I don't mind the parameter for "don't do blocking things" (we should
> use that to also use GFP_KERNEL/GFP_NOFS or whatever for the
> allocation), it makes sense.
>
> What I would like to see is the option to pass in memory that was
> externally kmalloc'd. So that you can do
>
> foo = kmalloc(..)
> spin_lock(bar)
> ...
> async_schedule_atomic(...);
>
> spin_unlock(bar);
> if (not_used_foo)
>    kfree(foo);
>
> in cases where you don't want to fail while in the atomic portion,
> but can fail better earlier.

If we do this way, the type of async_schedule*()  and async_schedule*_inatomic()
is different, and callers will be messed with them, especially for _inatomic().

BTW: I have submited new version of this patches, would you mind
giving a review?

Thanks.

-- 
Lei Ming
--
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/