[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aRR3O7l2Ewx-VRoE@milan>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:02:03 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
syzbot ci <syzbot+ci9989da8336cb2bc7@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, vishal.moola@...il.com, syzbot@...ts.linux.dev,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot ci] Re: make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:07:29PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > Unexpected gfp: 0x100000 (__GFP_HARDWALL). Fixing up to gfp: 0xdc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO). Fix your code!
> > >
> > It looks like we need to add __GFP_HARDWALL to the white-list-mask.
>
> __GFP_HARDWALL is part of GFP_USER. Doing GFP_USER vmalloc sounds like
> a bit of an odd idea to me, but there are a few users mostly in bpf
> and drm code (why do these always show up for odd API usage patterns?).
>
> So I guess yes, we'll need to allow it for now, but I'd like to start
> a discussion if it really makes much sense.
>
<snip>
/* plain bpf_prog allocation */
prog = bpf_prog_alloc(bpf_prog_size(attr->insn_cnt), GFP_USER);
if (!prog) {
<snip>
I assume that was the place that triggered the splat.
Vishal, will you send the patch adding GFP_USER to address the splat?
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists