linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] btrfs: Use larger zlib buffer for s390 hardware compression

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:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:30:59 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Eduard Shishkin <edward6@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     dsterba@...e.cz, Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslonko@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] btrfs: Use larger zlib buffer for s390 hardware
 compression

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 01:18:06AM +0100, Eduard Shishkin wrote:
> >> @@ -61,7 +64,17 @@ struct list_head *zlib_alloc_workspace(unsigned int level)
> >>   			zlib_inflate_workspacesize());
> >>   	workspace->strm.workspace = kvmalloc(workspacesize, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>   	workspace->level = level;
> >> -	workspace->buf = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	workspace->buf = NULL;
> >> +	if (zlib_deflate_dfltcc_enabled()) {
> >> +		workspace->buf = kmalloc(ZLIB_DFLTCC_BUF_SIZE,
> >> +					 __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY |
> >> +					 __GFP_NOWARN | GFP_NOIO);
> > Why do you use this wild GFP flag combination? I can understand NOWARN,
> > but why the others?
> 
> This addresses the following complaint about order 2 allocation with 
> GFP_KERNEL:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/26/417
> 
> Below a fallback to a single page is implemented, as it was suggested.
> So, the initial (more costly) allocation should be made with minimal 
> aggression
> to allow the allocator fail. Otherwise, that fallback simply doesn't 
> make sense.
> Hence, such a combination.

I see, please add a comment explaining that.