linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in nfsd_reply_cache

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: <20161020155231.GA4347@fieldses.org>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:52:31 -0400
From:   Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in
 nfsd_reply_cache_init

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:23:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > While this would be good to get in, I don't see any particular urgency
> > here. This seems like it'd be reasonable for v4.9.
> 
> Agreed, looks ok to me. It certainly does not look like a new
> regression or like a serious problem issue in practice. So 4.9 sounds
> appropriate.

Gah, Jeff points out I forgot to merge this.

Jeff was also wondering whether we could instead just allocate this with
vmalloc--is there any drawback?  We only allocate this on nfsd startup,
so if the only drawback is the allocation itself being expensive then
that's no big deal.

--b.