netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] rtnl: Add GFP flag argument to rtnl

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: <20160711.130147.2231877907183030717.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	masashi.honma@...il.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] rtnl: Add GFP flag argument to
 rtnl_unicast()

From: Masashi Honma <masashi.honma@...il.com>
Date: Sat,  9 Jul 2016 12:59:04 +0900

> This commit extends rtnl_unicast() to specify GFP flags.
> 
> This commit depends on Eric Dumazet's commits below.
> 	ipv4: do not abuse GFP_ATOMIC in inet_netconf_notify_devconf()
> 	ipv6: do not abuse GFP_ATOMIC in inet6_netconf_notify_devconf()
> 
> Signed-off-by: Masashi Honma <masashi.honma@...il.com>

The code is correct and optimal as-is.  There is no gain to your
changes.  gfp_any() will do the right thing.

In fact, your change makes the code more error prone because if any
of these code paths get moved into an atomic context they will break
unless somone remembers to also fix up the GFP flags.

Meanwhile with the existing use of gfp_any() it will work
transparently in such a situation.

I'm not applying this.