linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix GFP

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: <20140117143329.GA6877@kroah.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:33:29 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Peng Tao <tao.peng@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix GFP_ATOMIC macro usage

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 09:46:56AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> GFP_ATOMIC is not a single gfp flag, but a macro which expands to the other
> flags and LACK of __GFP_WAIT flag. To check if caller wanted to perform an
> atomic allocation, the code must test __GFP_WAIT flag presence.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
> ---
>  .../lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h   |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h
> index d0d942c..dddccca1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ do {						\
>  do {									    \
>  	LASSERT(!in_interrupt() ||					    \
>  		((size) <= LIBCFS_VMALLOC_SIZE &&			    \
> -		 ((mask) & GFP_ATOMIC)) != 0);			    \
> +		 ((mask) & __GFP_WAIT) == 0));				    \
>  } while (0)

What a horrible assert, can't we just remove this entirely?
in_interrupt() usually should never be checked, if so, the code is doing
something wrong.  And __GFP flags shouldn't be used on their own.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/