linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL v2] Early SLAB fixes for 2.6.31

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, 15 Jun 2009 12:57:39 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Early SLAB fixes for 2.6.31

On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 19:51 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I think the boot order is too likely to change to make it a sane thing
> to have all call sites "know" at what point they are in the boot
> process. In your example, what does GFP_BOOT would mean ? Before
> scheduler is initialized ? before interrupts are on ?

Btw, I think this is a pretty important point. Linus suggested trying to
make slab initialization even earlier than what we now have. If we do
require GFP_BOOT annotations, then we'd need to sprinkle those all over
the place when we do that.

So from code shuffling point of view, it's better to support GFP_KERNEL
(almost) everywhere rather than require special annotations.

			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/