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: <20211127160043.1512b4063f30b4d043b37420@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 27 Nov 2021 16:00:43 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        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 Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:48:46 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:

> On Mon 22-11-21 16:32:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > 
> > Dave Chinner has mentioned that some of the xfs code would benefit from
> > kvmalloc support for __GFP_NOFAIL because they have allocations that
> > cannot fail and they do not fit into a single page.
> > 
> > The large part of the vmalloc implementation already complies with the
> > given gfp flags so there is no work for those to be done. The area
> > and page table allocations are an exception to that. Implement a retry
> > loop for those.
> > 
> > Add a short sleep before retrying. 1 jiffy is a completely random
> > timeout. Ideally the retry would wait for an explicit event - e.g.
> > a change to the vmalloc space change if the failure was caused by
> > the space fragmentation or depletion. But there are multiple different
> > reasons to retry and this could become much more complex. Keep the retry
> > simple for now and just sleep to prevent from hogging CPUs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> Are there still any concerns around this patch or the approach in
> general?

Well.  Like GFP_NOFAIL, every use is a sin.  But I don't think I've
ever seen a real-world report of anyone hitting GFP_NOFAIL's
theoretical issues.

I assume there will be a v3?