linux-kernel - Re: sk_lock: inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM

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: <20090710080247.GA2693@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:02:47 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sk_lock: inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W}
	usage

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 04:00:17PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> 
> The (sk_allocation & ~__GFP_WAIT) cases should be rare, but I guess
> the networking code shall do it anyway, because sk_allocation defaults
> to GFP_KERNEL. It seems that currently the networking code simply uses
> a lot of GFP_ATOMIC, do they really mean "I cannot sleep"?

Yep because they're done from softirq context.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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/