linux-kernel - Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page

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, 2 Oct 2020 11:07:29 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func.

On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:50:14AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:11:23AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > > +#define ___GFP_NO_LOCKS                0x800000u
> > 
> > Even if a new gfp flag gains a sufficient traction and support I am
> > _strongly_ opposed against consuming another flag for that. Bit space is
> > limited. 
> 
> That is definitely true. I'm not happy with the GFP flag at all, the
> comment is at best a damage limiting move. It still would be better for
> a memory pool to be reserved and sized for critical allocations.

This is one of the reasons I did a separate allocation function. No GFP
flag to leak into general usage.

> > Besides that we certainly do not want to allow craziness like
> > __GFP_NO_LOCK | __GFP_RECLAIM (and similar), do we?
> 
> That would deserve to be taken to a dumpster and set on fire. The flag
> combination could be checked in the allocator but the allocator path fast
> paths are bad enough already.

Isn't that what we have CONFIG_DEBUG_VM for?