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: <20150323130201.GB29084@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:02:01 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>, Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Use GFP_KERNEL allocation for the page cache in
 page_cache_read

On Sat 21-03-15 09:51:39, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 20-03-15 14:48:20, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:44:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > allocations where the caller cannot pass a gfp_mask need to obey
> > > > > the mapping_gfp_mask that is set by the mapping owner....
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, I thought this is true only when the function might be called from
> > > > the fs path.
> > > 
> > > How do you know in, say, mpage_readpages, you aren't being called
> > > from a fs path that holds locks? e.g. we can get there from ext4
> > > doing readdir, so it is holding an i_mutex lock at that point.
> > > 
> > > Many other paths into mpages_readpages don't hold locks, but there
> > > are some that do, and those that do need functionals like this to
> > > obey the mapping_gfp_mask because it is set appropriately for the
> > > allocation context of the inode that owns the mapping....
> > 
> > What about the following?
> > ---
> > From 5d905cb291138d61bbab056845d6e53bc4451ec8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> > Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:56:56 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] mm: do not ignore mapping_gfp_mask in page cache
> >  allocation paths
> 
> Looks reasonable, though I though there were more places that that
> in the mapping paths that need to be careful...

I have focused on those which involve page cache allocation because
those are obvious. We might need others but I do not see them right now.

I will include this patch for the next submit after I manage to wrap my
head around up-coming xfs changes and come up with something for
page_cache_read vs OOM killer issue.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ