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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:56:16 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> To: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com> Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, benh@...nel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, grant.likely@...aro.org, wangyijing@...wei.com, marc.zyngier@....com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com, mingo@...nel.org Subject: Re: [tip:irq/irqdomain] irqdomain: Introduce helper function irq_domain_add_hierarchy() On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:29:33PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote: > Thanks for reporting and fixing this. How about using GFP_ATOMIC > here? Well, I don't see the need to use GFP_ATOMIC if we absolutely don't have to. And in this case lockdep is, AFAICT, correct in saying that we still can do allocations with interrupts disabled, only not go down into fs and do all kinds of lock grabbing operations like page reclaim, writeout or whatever it is being done nowadays there. Yeah, this is also some old "no-no" in my memory which says that we should almost never use GFP_ATOMIC if it can be helped. OTOH, I wonder if this code would rather need to hand down explicit gfp flags in case it should be able to do GFP_ATOMIC operations at some point... Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. -- -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists