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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906151329310.24256@sister.anvils>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:38:12 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	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, 15 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:45:27PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:27 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Init code doesn't deserve to be more lazy than anybody else, and
> > > part of the reason why such a core piece of code is so crufty
> > > is exactly because people have been lazy there.
> > 
> > I think the main problem isn't necessarily init code per se, but the
> > pile of -common- code that can be called both at init time and later.
> 
> Just seems bogus argument. Everwhere else that does this (ie.
> allocations that are called from multiple allocation contexts)
> passes correct gfp flags down.

Fair enough that you jealously defend SL?B code from onslaught, but
FWIW I strongly agree with Ben on all this.  I cannot see the point
of the pain of moving around SL?B versus bootmem, if we immediately
force such a distinction (differently dressed) upon their users again.
I fully agree with Ben that it's the job of the allocator to provide
a service, and part of that job to understand its own limitations at
different stages of running.

Hugh
--
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/