linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160417211835.GY2829@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 17 Apr 2016 22:18:35 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@...cle.com>,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL

On Fri, 15 Apr, at 08:38:37AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> I looked at it a bit with Vaishali.  I wonder if it would be possible at 
> least to have only one flag? Then one wouldn't have to maintain the 
> subtle relationship between atomic and duplicates.  I'm not sure that it 
> would help Coccinelle, but at least one could see more quickly that 
> Coccinelle is giving a false positive.

Yeah, that would be a good idea.

How about we drop the @atomic parameter and simply use @duplicates to
figure out whether to perform duplicate detection, which we should
note in the comment of efivar_init() cannot be performed atomically.
Bonus points if someone can clean up the code flow too.

Otherwise, efivar_init() is done while holding a spinlock.