linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Add a dump_stack() to the unexpected GFP check

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: <20170116100930.GE32481@mtr-leonro.local>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:09:30 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Add a dump_stack() to the unexpected GFP check

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:55:22AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:48:51AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > Almost, except one point - pr_warn and dump_stack have different log
>
> Actually, Michal pointed out on IRC a more relevant difference:
>
> WARN() taints the kernel and we don't want that for GFP flags misuse.

And doesn't dump_stack do the same? It pollutes the log too.

> Also, from looking at __warn(), it checks panic_on_warn and we explode
> if set.

Right, it is very valid point.

>
> So no, we probably don't want WARN() here.

I understand, Thanks.

>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)