linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/cma: remove unsupported gfp_mask parameter from 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: <CAAmzW4M3KADCZD9+B2h7=WsYksGtg-GzYRCJjbqK5Scceynrrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:48:47 +0900
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/cma: remove unsupported gfp_mask parameter from cma_alloc()

2018-07-11 17:54 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>:
> On Wed 11-07-18 16:35:28, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> 2018-07-10 18:50 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>:
>> > On Tue 10-07-18 16:19:32, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> >> Hello, Marek.
>> >>
>> >> 2018-07-09 21:19 GMT+09:00 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>:
>> >> > cma_alloc() function doesn't really support gfp flags other than
>> >> > __GFP_NOWARN, so convert gfp_mask parameter to boolean no_warn parameter.
>> >>
>> >> Although gfp_mask isn't used in cma_alloc() except no_warn, it can be used
>> >> in alloc_contig_range(). For example, if passed gfp mask has no __GFP_FS,
>> >> compaction(isolation) would work differently. Do you have considered
>> >> such a case?
>> >
>> > Does any of cma_alloc users actually care about GFP_NO{FS,IO}?
>>
>> I don't know. My guess is that cma_alloc() is used for DMA allocation so
>> block device would use it, too. If fs/block subsystem initiates the
>> request for the device,
>> it would be possible that cma_alloc() is called with such a flag.
>> Again, I don't know
>> much about those subsystem so I would be wrong.
>
> The patch converts existing users and none of them really tries to use
> anything other than GFP_KERNEL [|__GFP_NOWARN] so this doesn't seem to
> be the case. Should there be a new user requiring more restricted
> gfp_mask we should carefuly re-evaluate and think how to support it.

One of existing user is general DMA layer and it takes gfp flags that is
provided by user. I don't check all the DMA allocation sites but how do
you convince that none of them try to use anything other
than GFP_KERNEL [|__GFP_NOWARN]?

Thanks.