linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP

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: <7ba2635d-68bd-ee1a-caa2-3ff571c7a3ee@suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:15:03 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag

On 07/28/2017 11:19 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> GFP_TEMPORARY has been introduced by e12ba74d8ff3 ("Group short-lived
> and reclaimable kernel allocations") along with __GFP_RECLAIMABLE. It's
> primary motivation was to allow users to tell that an allocation is
> short lived and so the allocator can try to place such allocations close
> together and prevent long term fragmentation. As much as this sounds
> like a reasonable semantic it becomes much less clear when to use the
> highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag. How long is temporary? Can
> the context holding that memory sleep? Can it take locks? It seems
> there is no good answer for those questions.
> 
> The current implementation of GFP_TEMPORARY is basically
> GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RECLAIMABLE which in itself is tricky because
> basically none of the existing caller provide a way to reclaim the
> allocated memory. So this is rather misleading and hard to evaluate for
> any benefits.
> 
> I have checked some random users and none of them has added the flag
> with a specific justification. I suspect most of them just copied from
> other existing users and others just thought it might be a good idea
> to use without any measuring. This suggests that GFP_TEMPORARY just
> motivates for cargo cult usage without any reasoning.
> 
> I believe that our gfp flags are quite complex already and especially
> those with highlevel semantic should be clearly defined to prevent from
> confusion and abuse. Therefore I propose dropping GFP_TEMPORARY and
> replace all existing users to simply use GFP_KERNEL. Please note that
> SLAB users with shrinkers will still get __GFP_RECLAIMABLE heuristic
> and so they will be placed properly for memory fragmentation prevention.
> 
> I can see reasons we might want some gfp flag to reflect shorterm
> allocations but I propose starting from a clear semantic definition and
> only then add users with proper justification.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

Yes, it's best we remove it.

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>