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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 13 Aug 2020 20:31:21 +0200
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <>,
        LKML <>, RCU <>,, Andrew Morton <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 09:29:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> OK.  So the current situation requires a choice between these these
> alternatives, each of which has shortcomings that have been mentioned
> earlier in this thread:
> 1.	Prohibit invoking allocators from raw atomic context, such
> 	as when holding a raw spinlock.

This! This has always been the case, why are we even considering change

> 2.	Adding a GFP_ flag.

The patch 1/2 in this thread is horrendous crap.

> 3.	Reusing existing GFP_ flags/values/whatever to communicate
> 	the raw-context information that was to be communicated by
> 	the new GFP_ flag.
> 4.	Making lockdep forgive acquiring spinlocks while holding
> 	raw spinlocks, but only in CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels.
> Am I missing anything?

How would 4 solve anything?

In other words, what is the actual friggin problem? I've not seen one
described anywhere.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists