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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YaSVpL+Rx0q2rGbh@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:56:04 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Sat 27-11-21 16:00:43, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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 am not sure what you mean here. If you are missing real GFP_NOFAIL use
cases then some have been mentioned in the discussion

> I assume there will be a v3?

Currently I do not have any follow up changes on top of neither of the
patch except for acks and review tags. I can repost with those if you
prefer.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs