linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/8] Allow 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201509152216.EEC57388.JLQFFFSHtVOOMO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
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/