linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ubifs: Change gfp flags in page allocation for bulk read

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <314951c9-6a6e-7f7c-5f3e-45827778f81f@nod.at>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:53:19 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Hyunchul Lee <hyc.lee@...il.com>
Cc:     Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs: Change gfp flags in page allocation for bulk read

Hyunchul,

Am 13.06.2017 um 08:30 schrieb Hyunchul Lee:
> From: Hyunchul Lee <cheol.lee@....com>
> 
> Use readahead_gfp_mask for gfp flags when allocating pages.
> This set additional flags which are __GFP_NORETRY and
> __GFP_NOWARN. So OOMs and a failure message can be
> avoided.
> And we should remove __GFP_FS from flags to prevent from
> calling ubifs_writepage during page reclaim.

Your commit message does not explain why we need this and what
problem it solves.
When facing changes like this I'm especially interested in whether
this is a theoretical bugfix or not.

Thanks,
//richard