linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Make GFP_DMA allocations w/o ZONE

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, 1 Jun 2011 21:46:37 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make GFP_DMA allocations w/o ZONE_DMA emit a warning
 instead of failing

On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > > That is NOT an unreasonable request, but it seems that its far too much
> > > to ask of you.
> > 
> > Full ack.
> > 
> > David,
> > 
> > stop that nonsense already. You changed the behaviour and broke stuff
> > which was working fine before for whatever reason. That behaviour was
> > in the kernel for ages and we tolerated the abuse.
> > 
> 
> Did I nack this patch and not realize it?

No, you did not realize anything.

> Does my patch fix the warning for pxaficp_ir that would still be emitted 
> with this patch?  If the driver uses GFP_DMA and nobody from the arm side 

Your patch does not fix anything. It papers over the problem and
that's the f@...%@...ng wrong approach.

And just to be clear. You CANNOT fix a warning. You can fix the code
which causes the warning, but that's not what your patch is
doing. Your patch HIDES the problem.

> is prepared to remove it yet, then I'd suggest merging my patch until that 
> can be determined.  Otherwise, you have no guarantees about where the 
> memory is actually coming from.

Did you actually try to understand what I wrote? 

You decided that it's a BUG just because it should not be allowed. So
you changed the behaviour, which was perfectly fine before.

Now you try to paper over the problem by selecting ZONE_DMA and refuse
to give a grace period of _ONE_ kernel release.

IOW, you are preventing that the abusers of GFP_DMA are fixed
properly.

I can see that you neither have the bandwidth nor the knowledge to
analyse each user of GFP_DMA. And that should tell you something.

If you cannot fix it yourself, then f*(&!@...g not break it.

Thanks,

	tglx

--
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/