[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DD009980D@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:03:07 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Daniel Borkmann' <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
"sp3485@...umbia.edu" <sp3485@...umbia.edu>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net 0/3] Fix for BPF devmap percpu allocation splat
From: Daniel Borkmann
> Sent: 17 October 2017 15:56
>
> The set fixes a splat in devmap percpu allocation when we alloc
> the flush bitmap. Patch 1 is a prerequisite for the fix in patch 2,
> patch 1 is rather small, so if this could be routed via -net, for
> example, with Tejun's Ack that would be good. Patch 3 gets rid of
> remaining PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE checks, which are percpu allocator
> internals and should not be used.
Does it make sense to allow the user program to try to allocate ever
smaller very large maps until it finds one that succeeds - thus
using up all the percpu space?
Or is this a 'root only' 'shoot self in foot' job?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists