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  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:   Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:13:57 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <>,
        LKML <>, RCU <>,, Andrew Morton <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag

On Thu 13-08-20 09:04:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 05:54:12PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > If the whole bailout is guarded by CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT specific atomicity
> > check then there is no functional problem - GFP_RT_SAFE would still be
> > GFP_NOWAIT so functional wise the allocator will still do the right
> > thing.
> Perhaps it was just me getting confused, early hour Pacific Time and
> whatever other excuses might apply.  But I thought that you still had
> an objection to GFP_RT_SAFE based on changes in allocator semantics for
> other users.

There is still that problem with lockdep complaining about raw->regular
spinlock on !PREEMPT_RT that would need to get resolved somehow. Thomas
is not really keen on adding some lockdep annotation mechanism and
unfortunatelly I do not have a different idea how to get rid of those.
Michal Hocko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists