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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:50:01 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     JianKang Chen <chenjiankang1@...wei.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xieyisheng1@...wei.com,
        guohanjun@...wei.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: drop VM_BUG_ON from __get_free_pages

On 06/27/2018 09:34 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 26-06-18 10:04:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> And as I've argued before the code would be wrong regardless. We would
> leak the memory or worse touch somebody's else kmap without knowing
> that.  So we have a choice between a mem leak, data corruption k or a
> silent fixup. I would prefer the last option. And blowing up on a BUG
> is not much better on something that is easily fixable. I am not really
> convinced that & ~__GFP_HIGHMEM is something to lose sleep over.

Maybe put the fixup into a "#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM" block and then modern
systems won't care? In that case it could even be if (WARN_ON_ONCE(...))
so future cases with wrong expectations would become known.

Vlastimil

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ