linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bcachefs tree with the mm-unstable tree

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: <20250818192941.94fa175267dd4e334ca529ad@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:29:41 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.se>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bcachefs tree with the
 mm-unstable tree

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 11:12:28 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bcachefs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/bcachefs/darray.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   97b75b7e275a ("mm/slub: allow to set node and align in k[v]realloc")
> 
> from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
> 
>   808708fe9da0 ("bcachefs: darray_make_room_rcu()")
> 
> from the bcachefs tree.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/bcachefs/darray.c
> +++ b/fs/bcachefs/darray.c
> @@@ -20,10 -22,11 +22,11 @@@ int __bch2_darray_resize_noprof(darray_
>   		if (unlikely(check_mul_overflow(new_size, element_size, &bytes)))
>   			return -ENOMEM;
>   
> - 		void *data = likely(bytes < INT_MAX)
> + 		void *old = d->data;
> + 		void *new = likely(bytes < INT_MAX)
>  -			? kvmalloc_noprof(bytes, gfp)
>  +			? kvmalloc_node_align_noprof(bytes, 1, gfp, NUMA_NO_NODE)
>   			: vmalloc_noprof(bytes);
> - 		if (!data)
> + 		if (!new)
>   			return -ENOMEM;

uh, OK, I guess a 2GB allocation is reasonable on a 16TB machine.

But why does bcachefs find it necessary to bypass allocation profiling?