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  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:	Fri, 1 May 2009 13:05:50 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
cc:	Mel Gorman <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Andi Kleen <>,
	David Miller <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm] mm: alloc_large_system_hash check order

On Fri, 1 May 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Hugh Dickins a écrit :
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:09:48PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >>> On an x86_64 with 4GB ram, tcp_init()'s call to alloc_large_system_hash(),
> >>> to allocate tcp_hashinfo.ehash, is now triggering an mmotm WARN_ON_ONCE on
> >>> order >= MAX_ORDER - it's hoping for order 11.  alloc_large_system_hash()
> >>> had better make its own check on the order.
> Well, I dont know why, since alloc_large_system_hash() already take
> care of retries, halving size between each tries.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I just meant that if we keep that
WARN_ON_ONCE(order >= MAX_ORDER) in __alloc_pages_slowpath(),
then we need alloc_large_system_hash() to avoid the call to
__get_free_pages() in the order >= MAX_ORDER case,
precisely because we're happy with the way it halves and
falls back, so don't want a noisy warning; and now that we know
that it could give that warning, it would be a shame for the
_ONCE to suppress more interesting warnings later.

I certainly did not mean for alloc_large_system_hash() to fail
in the order >= MAX_ORDER case, nor did the patch do so.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists