linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] mm, hugetlb: retry if failed to allocate and there is concurrent user

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: <20140115125051.d533309988175abda67cab23@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:50:51 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] mm, hugetlb: retry if failed to allocate and
 there is concurrent user

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:47:00 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:

> > Well, we're mainly looking for bugfixes this last in the cycle. 
> > "[PATCH v3 03/14] mm, hugetlb: protect region tracking via newly
> > introduced resv_map lock" fixes a bug, but I'd assumed that it depended
> > on earlier patches. 
> 
> It doesn't seem to depend on anything. All 1-7 patches apply cleanly on
> linux-next, the last change to mm/hugetlb.c was commit 3ebac7fa (mm:
> dump page when hitting a VM_BUG_ON using VM_BUG_ON_PAGE).
> 
> >  If we think that one is serious then it would be
> > better to cook up a minimal fix which is backportable into 3.12 and
> > eariler?
> 
> I don't think it's too serious, afaik it's a theoretical race and I
> haven't seen any bug reports for it. So we can probably just wait for
> 3.14, as you say, it's already late in the cycle anyways.

OK, thanks.

> Just let me
> know what you want to do so we can continue working on the actual
> performance issue.

A resend after -rc1 would suit.
--
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/