linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #13319] Page allocation failures with b43 and p54usb

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]

Date:	Mon, 18 May 2009 09:31:47 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, adrian@...golddream.dyndns.info
Subject: Re: [Bug #13319] Page allocation failures with b43 and p54usb

Hi Andrew,

On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:20:45 +0200 (CEST) "Rafael J. Wysocki"
<rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>> of recent regressions.
>>
>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>> from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
>> (either way).
>>
>>
>> Bug-Entry     : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13319
>> Subject               : Page allocation failures with b43 and p54usb
>> Submitter     : Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
>> Date          : 2009-04-29 21:01 (18 days old)
>> References    : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124103897101088&w=4
>> Handled-By    : Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Well..  order-1 GFP_ATOMIC allocations are unreliable.  The networking
> code should hanlde the situation and recover.  I assume that is
> happening in this case?
>
> Perhaps we did something in that code after 2.6.29 which increased the
> frequency of the order-1 allocation attempts?  Maybe earlier kernels
> used order-0 all the time?  Those are much more reliable.

I wonder if this is related:

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13069

Both point to post 2.6.29... Hmm.
--
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/