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:	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:38:55 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] net: don't use in_atomic() in gfp_any()

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/' ?
--
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