linux-kernel - Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from

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: <20090624120617.1e6799b5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:06:17 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	penberg@...helsinki.fi, arjan@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from_freelist

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> So I'd suggest just doing this..
> 
> 			Linus
> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index aecc9cd..5d714f8 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1153,10 +1153,10 @@ again:
>  			 * properly detect and handle allocation failures.
>  			 *
>  			 * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
> -			 * allocate greater than single-page units with
> +			 * allocate greater than order-1 page units with
>  			 * __GFP_NOFAIL.
>  			 */
> -			WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 0);
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1);
>  		}
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>  		page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype);

Well.  What is our overall objective here?

My original patch was motiviated by the horror at discovering that
we're using this thing (which was _never_ supposed to have new users)
for order>0 allocations.  We've gone backwards.

Ideally, we'd fix all callers to handle allocation faliures then remove
__GFP_NOFAIL.  But I don't know how to fix JBD.

So perhaps we should just revert that WARN_ON altogether, and I can go
on a little grep-empowered rampage, see if we can remove some of these
callsites.

It's not a huge problem, btw.  I don't think I've ever seen a report of
a machine getting stuck in a __GFP_NOFAIL allocation attempt.  But from
a design perspective it's Just Wrong.

--
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/