linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: cma: honor __GFP_ZERO flag in cma

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: <20180613125546.GB32016@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:55:46 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: cma: honor __GFP_ZERO flag in cma_alloc()

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 02:40:00PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> It is not only the matter of the spinlocks. GFP_ATOMIC is not supported 
> by the
> memory compaction code, which is used in alloc_contig_range(). Right, this
> should be also noted in the documentation.

Documentation is good, asserts are better.  The code should reject any
flag not explicitly supported, or even better have its own flags type
with the few actually supported flags.