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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <578470CF.6060609@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:23:43 +0900
From:	Masashi Honma <masashi.honma@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] rtnl: Add GFP flag argument to rtnl_unicast()

On 2016年07月12日 05:01, David Miller wrote:

> 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.

I see. Thank you for reviewing.