linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/11] mempool: factor out a mempool_alloc_from

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: <b6d035e1-9b29-4a3f-89bd-5f556005d07b@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 12:32:58 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Andrew Morton
 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
 David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] mempool: factor out a mempool_alloc_from_pool
 helper

On 11/24/25 00:04, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 
> You are completely right: it was me who was missing that the second
> pool->alloc is with the full gfp, so not an identical repeat of the
> the first; and so it is correct not to wait after the first attempt,
> so you are right to call with gfp_temp instead of gfp_mask there.
> 
> (And this also addresses my slight concern, of whether it was
> appropriate to be doing a pool->alloc after waiting for a mempool
> free: your way, there is no such wait, at least not that most
> important first->second time: the wait would instead be inside
> the pool->alloc probably, reclaiming.)
> 
> Yes, your fixup is better in all ways than mine, please go ahead.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hugh

Thanks, Hugh!