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]
Date:   Thu, 5 Apr 2018 07:22:58 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
To:     Joel Fernandes <>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        LKML <>,,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:12:52PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Matthew Wilcox <> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:47:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> I originally was going to remove the RETRY_MAYFAIL, but adding this
> >> check (at the end of the loop though) appears to have OOM consistently
> >> kill this task.
> >>
> >> I still like to keep RETRY_MAYFAIL, because it wont trigger OOM if
> >> nothing comes in and tries to do an allocation, but instead will fail
> >> nicely with -ENOMEM.
> >
> > I still don't get why you want RETRY_MAYFAIL.  You know that tries
> > *harder* to allocate memory than plain GFP_KERNEL does, right?  And
> > that seems like the exact opposite of what you want.
> No. We do want it to try harder but not if its already setup for failure.

I understand you don't want GFP_NORETRY.  But why is it more important for
this allocation to succeed than other normal GFP_KERNEL allocations?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists