linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP

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]

Message-ID: <YZ/wQ+EuGzpxA0DO@pc638.lan>
Date:   Thu, 25 Nov 2021 21:21:23 +0100
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL

> On Thu 25-11-21 21:03:23, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 08:24:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 25-11-21 19:02:09, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Therefore i root for simplification and OOM related concerns :) But
> > > > maybe there will be other opinions.
> > > 
> > > I have to say that I disagree with your view. I am not sure we have
> > > other precedence where an allocator would throw away the primary
> > > allocation just because a metadata allocation failure.
> > > 
> > Well, i tried to do some code review and raised some concerns and
> > proposals.
> 
> I do appreciate your review! No question about that.
> 
> I was just surprised by your reaction that your review feedback had been
> ignored because I do not think this is the case.
> 
> We were in a disagreement and that is just fine. It is quite normal to
> disagree. The question is whether that disagreement is fundamental and
> poses a roadblock for merging. I definitely do not want and mean to push
> anything by force. My previous understanding was that your concerns are
> mostly about aesthetics rather than blocking further progress.
>
It is not up to me to block you from further progress and of course it
was not my intention. You asked for a review i did it, that is it :)

--
Vlad Rezki