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: <5065B42F.5010007@parallels.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:29:03 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.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 09/28/2012 06:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.
> 

The flag is passed around extensively, but I was imagining the whole
point of that is that having the flag itself is harmless, and will be
ignored by the page allocator ?


--
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/