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: <20090625044155.GC23949@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:41:55 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:30:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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>

Maybe we never get there if __GFP_WAIT is clear? It would be neater
if it did clear __GFP_FS, though...

--
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/