linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block

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]

Date:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:27:38 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

On Thu 15-08-19 22:16:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:35 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > > The last detail is I'm still unclear what a GFP flags a blockable
> > > invalidate_range_start() should use. Is GFP_KERNEL OK?
> >
> > I hope I will not make this muddy again ;)
> > invalidate_range_start in the blockable mode can use/depend on any sleepable
> > allocation allowed in the context it is called from. So in other words
> > it is no different from any other function in the kernel that calls into
> > allocator. As the API is missing gfp context then I hope it is not
> > called from any restricted contexts (except from the oom which we have
> > !blockable for).
> 
> Hm, that's new to me. I thought mmu notifiers very much can be called
> from direct reclaim paths, so you have to be extremely careful with
> getting back into that one.

Correct, I should have added that notifier callbacks ideally do not
allocate any memory. They can block and even that is quite a pain to be
honest.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs