linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] bcachefs: do not use PF_MEMALLOC

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: <Zszbt8M5mUPZjbFq@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 20:47:03 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
	jack@...e.cz, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bcachefs: do not use PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 08:41:42PM GMT, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 03:39:47PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > Given the amount of plumbing required here, it's clear that passing gfp
> > > flags is the less safe way of doing it, and this really does belong in
> > > the allocation context.
> > > 
> > > Failure to pass gfp flags correctly (which we know is something that
> > > happens today, e.g. vmalloc -> pte allocation) means you're introducing
> > > a deadlock.
> > 
> > The problem with vmalloc is that the page table allocation _doesn't_
> > take a GFP parameter.
> 
> yeah, I know. I posted patches to plumb it through, which were nacked by
> Linus.
> 
> And we're trying to get away from passing gfp flags directly, are we
> not? I just don't buy the GFP_NOFAIL unsafety argument.

The problem with the giant invasive change of "getting away from passing
GFP flags directly" is that you need to build consensus for what it
looks like and convince everyone that you have a solution that solves
all the problems, or at least doesn't make any of those problems worse.
You haven't done that, you've just committed code that the MM people hate
(indeed already rejected), and set back the idea.

Look, it's not your job to fix it, but if you want to do it, do it
properly.