linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] mm: cma: support sysfs

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, 19 Mar 2021 20:41:40 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, joaodias@...gle.com,
        willy@...radead.org, david@...hat.com, surenb@...gle.com,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@...il.com>,
        "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: cma: support sysfs

19.03.2021 20:29, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> +void cma_sysfs_alloc_pages_count(struct cma *cma, size_t count)
> +{
> +	atomic64_add(count, &cma->nr_pages_succeeded);
> +}
> +
> +void cma_sysfs_fail_pages_count(struct cma *cma, size_t count)
> +{
> +	atomic64_add(count, &cma->nr_pages_failed);
> +}

The atomic looks good, but aren't CMA allocations already protected by
the CMA core? Do we really need to worry about racing here?