linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] adjust gfp mask passed on nested vmalloc() invocation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <4ACCA3B402000078000187BE@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date:	Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:20:36 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Hugh Dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Cc:	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] adjust gfp mask passed on nested vmalloc() 
	 invocation

>>> Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk> 07.10.09 14:08 >>>
>Well, now we've accepted that this code cannot be used in_interrupt(),
>there's no need for your #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM nor for my memset: just
>use __GFP_ZERO as it was before, and your patch would amount to or'ing
>__GFP_HIGHMEM into gfp_mask for the __vmalloc_node case - wouldn't it?

Plus the consolidation of masking the passed in gfp_mask by
GFP_RECLAIM_MASK also for the nested vmalloc() case, in particular to
remove the GFP_DMA* possibly coming in from vmalloc_32(). But yes,
it will become simpler.

Jan

--
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/