linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem

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: <20180405103421.60bcf53c@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:34:21 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-patch-test@...ts.linaro.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:27:49 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:

> > 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?  
> 
> I guess they simply want a failure rather than OOM even when they can
> shoot themselves into head by using oom_origin. It is still quite ugly
> to see OOM report...

Exactly!

-- Steve