linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] rhashtable-test: retry insert operations in threads

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]

Date:	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:43:03 +0200
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
	wfg@...ux.intel.com, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rhashtable-test: retry insert operations in threads

On 08/28/15 at 03:34pm, Phil Sutter wrote:
> Quite ugly, IMHO: rhashtable_insert_fast() may return -ENOMEM as
> non-permanent error, if allocation in GFP_ATOMIC failed. In this case,
> allocation in GFP_KERNEL is retried by rht_deferred_worker(). Sadly,
> there is no way to determine if that has already been tried and failed.
> 
> The thread test triggers GFP_ATOMIC allocation failure quite easily, so
> I can't really just ignore this issue. :)

Return EBUSY or ENOBUFS in the non-permanent case? It is definitely
helpful if the API allows to differ between permanent and
non-permanent errors.
--
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/