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: <20090612083005.56336219.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:30:05 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slab,slub: ignore __GFP_WAIT if we're booting or 
 suspending

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:34:00 +0300 Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:

> +static gfp_t slab_gfp_mask __read_mostly = __GFP_BITS_MASK & ~__GFP_WAIT;

It'd be safer and saner to disable __GFP_FS and __GFP_IO as well. 
Having either of those flags set without __GFP_WAIT is a somewhat
self-contradictory thing and there might be code under reclaim which
assumes that __GFP_FS|__GFP_IO implies __GFP_WAIT.

<wonders why mempool_alloc() didn't clear __GFP_FS>
--
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/