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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:01:51 +0530
From:	Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@...cle.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL



On Monday 18 April 2016 02:48 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> 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.
I think using only @duplicates would be helpful to make code
more clear. I can actually clean up the code flow but it may take
some time for me to send the patches as I  already have some other
work with me.

Do you want to go for it? Or for now we can just go for dropping @atomic
parameter. 

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

-- 
Vaishali