linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or suspending

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: <84144f020906120311x7c7dd628s82e3ca9a840f9890@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:11:52 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or 
	suspending

Hi Ingo,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> IMHO such invisible side-channels modifying the semantics of GFP
> flags is a bit dubious.
>
> We could do GFP_INIT or GFP_BOOT. These can imply other useful
> modifiers as well: panic-on-failure for example. (this would clean
> up a fair amount of init code that currently checks for an panics on
> allocation failure.)

OK, but that means we need to fix up every single caller. I'm fine
with that but Ben is not. As I am unable to test powerpc here, I am
inclined to just merge Ben's patch as "obviously correct".

That does not mean we can't introduce GFP_BOOT later on if we want to. Hmm?

                        Pekka
--
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/