linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] lib/rhashtable: simplify bucket_table

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: <20180622063613.kcnkrfpyszphnf46@linux-r8p5>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:36:13 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        tgraf@...g.ch, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
        manfred@...orfullife.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
        guillaume.knispel@...ersonicimagine.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] lib/rhashtable: simplify bucket_table_alloc()

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, NeilBrown wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 21 2018, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
>> As of ce91f6ee5 (mm: kvmalloc does not fallback to vmalloc for incompatible gfp flag),
>> we can simplify the caller and trust kvzalloc() to just do the right thing.
>
>Hi,
> it isn't clear to me that this is true.
> With this change we lose __GFP_NOWARN and __GFP_NORETRY.
> I doubt the NORETRY is particularly important as this is if it
> isn't GFP_KERNEL, then it is GFP_ATOMIC which doesn't retry anyway.
> However I cannot see why this patch won't result in warnings when the
> kzalloc() fails.
> What am I missing?

You're right, it might be too agressive to get rid of the GFP_NOWARN for
the callers that do GFP_ATOMIC.

I'll send a new version of this patch along with a better changelog.

Thanks,
Davidlohr
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)