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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:42 -0700 From: Jin Qian <jinqian@...roid.com> To: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Wei Yongjun <weiyj.lk@...il.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, lstoakes@...il.com, jack@...e.cz, christian.koenig@....com, Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock Reviewed-by: Jin Qian <jinqian@...gle.com> Can we merge this to stable? Thanks! jin On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2017 13:51:52 +0200 > Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote: > >> On Sun 21-05-17 09:48:36, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Sun 21-05-17 00:45:46, Wei Yongjun wrote: >> > > From: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com> >> > > >> > > The function get_free_pipe_id_locked() is called from >> > > goldfish_pipe_open() with a lock is held, so we should >> > > use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL. >> > >> > Why is GFP_NOWAIT insufficient? Does this path needs an access to memory >> > reserves? >> >> And now when looking at the code more deeply, wouldn't it be much better >> to simply do the allocation outside of the spin lock and do assignments >> with the lock held? > > That's far from trivial and certainly for backporting and an immediate > fix this seems better. The allocations are not that large and any fail > would be in open() not anywhere weird. > > Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists