linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZtWH3SkiIEed4NDc@tiehlicka>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:39:41 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] bcachefs: do not use PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM

On Mon 02-09-24 04:52:49, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 10:41:31AM GMT, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 01-09-24 21:35:30, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > [...]
> > > But I am saying that kmalloc(__GFP_NOFAIL) _should_ fail and return NULL
> > > in the case of bugs, because that's going to be an improvement w.r.t.
> > > system robustness, in exactly the same way we don't use BUG_ON() if it's
> > > something that we can't guarantee won't happen in the wild - we WARN()
> > > and try to handle the error as best we can.
> > 
> > We have discussed that in a different email thread. And I have to say
> > that I am not convinced that returning NULL makes a broken code much
> > better. Why? Because we can expect that broken NOFAIL users will not have a
> > error checking path. Even valid NOFAIL users will not have one because
> > they _know_ they do not have a different than retry for ever recovery
> > path. 
> 
> You mean where I asked you for a link to the discussion and rationale
> you claimed had happened? Still waiting on that

I am not your assistent to be tasked and search through lore archives.
Find one if you need that.

Anyway, if you read the email and even tried to understand what is
written there rather than immediately started shouting a response then
you would have noticed I have put actual arguments here. You are free to
disagree with them and lay down your arguments. You have decided to

[...]

> Yeah, enough of this insanity.

so I do not think you are able to do that. Again...
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs