linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

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: <0000013a0d475174-343e3b17-6755-42c1-9dae-a9287ad7d403-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:28:29 +0000
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

> There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be
> defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK,
> which is conditional to KMEMCHECK.
>
> This simple patch makes it unconditional.

__GFP_NOTRACK is only used in context where CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is defined?

If that is not the case then you need to define GFP_NOTRACK and substitute
it where necessary.

--
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/