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: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:16:30 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> To: mhocko@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, david@...morbit.com, tytso@....edu, jack@...e.cz Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Allow GFP_NOFS allocation to fail Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Thoughts? Opinions? > > To me, fixing callers (adding __GFP_NORETRY to callers) in a step-by-step > fashion after adding proactive countermeasure sounds better than changing > the default behavior (implicitly applying __GFP_NORETRY inside). > Ping? I showed you at http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=144198479931388 that changing the default behavior can not terminate the game of Whack-A-Mole. As long as there are unkillable threads, we can't kill context-sensitive moles. I believe that what we need to do now is to add a proactive countermeasure (e.g. kill more processes) than try to reduce the possibility of hitting this issue (e.g. allow !__GFP_FS to fail). -- 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