linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone

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: <201701252213.GBC87546.FQFVtMLJSFHOOO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:13:34 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     mhocko@...nel.org
Cc:     hch@....de, mgorman@...e.de, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 25-01-17 19:33:59, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I think we are missing a check for fatal_signal_pending in
> > > iomap_file_buffered_write. This means that an oom victim can consume the
> > > full memory reserves. What do you think about the following? I haven't
> > > tested this but it mimics generic_perform_write so I guess it should
> > > work.
> > 
> > Looks OK to me. I worried
> > 
> > #define AOP_FLAG_UNINTERRUPTIBLE        0x0001 /* will not do a short write */
> > 
> > which forbids (!?) aborting the loop. But it seems that this flag is
> > no longer checked (i.e. set but not used). So, everybody should be ready
> > for short write, although I don't know whether exofs / hfs / hfsplus are
> > doing appropriate error handling.
> 
> Those were using generic implementation before and that handles this
> case AFAICS.

What I wanted to say is: "We can remove AOP_FLAG_UNINTERRUPTIBLE completely
because grep does not find that flag used in condition check, can't we?".