netdev - Re: [patch 1/2] net: don't use in_atomic() in gfp

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]

Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:48:42 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] net: don't use in_atomic() in gfp_any()

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:38:55 +0900
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Solve both these problems by switching to in_interrupt().  Now, if someone
> > runs a gfp_any() allocation from inside spinlock we will get the warning
> > if CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
> 
> >  static inline gfp_t gfp_any(void)
> >  {
> > -	return in_atomic() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL;
> > +	return in_softirq() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL;
> >  }
> sed -i -e 's/in_softirq/in_interrupt/' ?

heh, good question.

I did all my testing with in_softirq() - the changelog didn't catch up.



Is gfp_any() supposed to be usable from hardirq context?

If so, we should use in_interrupt().

If not, we should use in_softirq(), and we'll then get might_sleep()
warnings if anyone uses gfp_any() from hard irq context.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html