linux-kernel - Re: decode GFP flags in oom killer output.

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:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:50:06 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: decode GFP flags in oom killer output.

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Dave Jones wrote:

> Decoding these flags by hand in oom reports is tedious,
> and error-prone.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> 
> diff -durpN '--exclude-from=/home/davej/.exclude' -u src/git-trees/kernel/linux/include/linux/gfp.h linux-dj/include/linux/gfp.h
> --- linux/include/linux/gfp.h	2012-01-11 16:54:21.736395499 -0500
> +++ linux-dj/include/linux/gfp.h	2012-03-06 13:17:37.294692113 -0500
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>  struct vm_area_struct;
>  
>  /* Plain integer GFP bitmasks. Do not use this directly. */
> +/* Update mm/oom_kill.c gfp_flag_texts when adding to/changing this list */
>  #define ___GFP_DMA		0x01u
>  #define ___GFP_HIGHMEM		0x02u
>  #define ___GFP_DMA32		0x04u
> diff -durpN '--exclude-from=/home/davej/.exclude' -u src/git-trees/kernel/linux/mm/oom_kill.c linux-dj/mm/oom_kill.c
> --- linux/mm/oom_kill.c	2012-01-17 17:54:14.541881964 -0500
> +++ linux-dj/mm/oom_kill.c	2012-03-06 13:17:44.071680535 -0500
> @@ -416,13 +416,40 @@ static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static unsigned char *gfp_flag_texts[32] = {
> +	"DMA", "HIGHMEM", "DMA32", "MOVABLE",
> +	"WAIT", "HIGH", "IO", "FS",
> +	"COLD", "NOWARN", "REPEAT", "NOFAIL",
> +	"NORETRY", NULL, "COMP", "ZERO",
> +	"NOMEMALLOC", "HARDWALL", "THISNODE", "RECLAIMABLE",
> +	NULL, "NOTRACK", "NO_KSWAPD", "OTHER_NODE",
> +};

Hmm, there are 24 entries in this list, yet you allocate an array of size 
32 - why?
Shouldn't this just be 'static unsigned char *gfp_flag_texts[] = {...}' 
and let the compiler worry about the size? Or am I overlooking something 
obvious?

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

--
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/