linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] memalloc_noio: update the comment to make it cleaner

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e49636bd-11d2-b90c-d1b2-3afd89de43d2@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:17:07 +0800
From:   Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memalloc_noio: update the comment to make it cleaner

On 2019/9/18 16:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 18-09-19 16:02:52, Xiubo Li wrote:
>> On 2019/9/18 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 18-09-19 04:58:20, xiubli@...hat.com wrote:
>>>> From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
>>>>
>>>> The GFP_NOIO means all further allocations will implicitly drop
>>>> both __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS flags and so they are safe for both the
>>>> IO critical section and the the critical section from the allocation
>>>> recursion point of view. Not only the __GFP_IO, which a bit confusing
>>>> when reading the code or using the save/restore pair.
>>> Historically GFP_NOIO has always implied GFP_NOFS as well. I can imagine
>>> that this might come as an surprise for somebody not familiar with the
>>> code though.
>> Yeah, it true.
>>
>>>    I am wondering whether your update of the documentation
>>> would be better off at __GFP_FS, __GFP_IO resp. GFP_NOFS, GFP_NOIO level.
>>> This interface is simply a way to set a scoped NO{IO,FS} context.
>> The "Documentation/core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io.rst" is already very detail
>> about them all.
>>
>> This fixing just means to make sure that it won't surprise someone who is
>> having a quickly through some code and not familiar much about the detail.
>> It may make not much sense ?
> Ohh, I do not think this would be senseless. I just think that the NOIO
> implying NOFS as well should be described at the level where they are
> documented rather than the api you have chosen.

Hmm, yeah totally agree :-)

Thanks
BRs