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]

Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:07:14 -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 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 
> > > If the caller gets oom-killed, the allocation attempt fails.  Callers need
> > > to handle that.
> > 
> > I actually disagree. I think we should just admit that we can always free 
> > up enough space to get a few pages, in order to then oom-kill things.
> 
> Btw, if you want to change the WARN_ON() to warn when you're in the 
> "allocate in order to free memory" recursive case, then I'd have no issues 
> with that.
> 
> In fact, in that case it probably shouldn't even be conditional on the 
> order. 
> 
> So a
> 
> 	WARN_ON_ONCE((p->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) && (gfpmask & __GFP_NOFAIL));
> 
> actually makes tons of sense. 

I suspect that warning will trigger.

alloc_pages
-> ...
  -> pageout
    -> ...
      -> get_request
        -> blk_alloc_request
          -> elv_set_request
            -> cfq_set_request
              -> cfq_get_queue
                -> cfq_find_alloc_queue
                  -> kmem_cache_alloc_node(__GFP_NOFAIL)
                    -> Jens

How much this can happen in practice I don't know, but it looks bad.

> There are other cases where __GFP_NOFAIL doesn't make sense too, and that 
> could be warned about. The __GFP_NORETRY thing was already mentioned. 
> Similarly, !__GFP_WAIT doesn't work with __GFP_NOFAIL - because the nofail 
> obviously relies on being able to do something about the failure case.
> 
> We might want to also have rules like "in order to have NOFAIL, you need 
> to allow IO and FS accesses". 

Sure, that's sane.

fs/jbd/journal.c:       new_bh = alloc_buffer_head(GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL);

But that isn't :(

> So I don't mind warnings with __GFP_NOFAIL. I just think they should be 
> relevant, and make sense. The "order > 0" one is neither.

--
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/