Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:15:08 +0100 | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc |
| |
On 01/30/2017 08:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > [...] >>>> So to answer your second email with the bpf and netfilter hunks, why >>>> not replacing them with kvmalloc() and __GFP_NORETRY flag and add that >>>> big fat FIXME comment above there, saying explicitly that __GFP_NORETRY >>>> is not harmful though has only /partial/ effect right now and that full >>>> support needs to be implemented in future. That would still be better >>>> that not having it, imo, and the FIXME would make expectations clear >>>> to anyone reading that code. >>> >>> Well, we can do that, I just would like to prevent from this (ab)use >>> if there is no _real_ and _sensible_ usecase for it. Having a real bug >> >> Understandable. >> >>> report or a fallback mechanism you are mentioning above would justify >>> the (ab)use IMHO. But that abuse would be documented properly and have a >>> real reason to exist. That sounds like a better approach to me. >>> >>> But if you absolutely _insist_ I can change that. >> >> Yeah, please do (with a big FIXME comment as mentioned), this originally >> came from a real bug report. Anyway, feel free to add my Acked-by then. > > Thanks! I will repost the whole series today.
Looks like I got only Cc'ed on the cover letter of your v3 from today (should have been v4 actually?). Anyway, I looked up the last patch on lkml [1] and it seems you forgot the __GFP_NORETRY we talked about? At least that was what was discussed above (insisting on __GFP_NORETRY plus FIXME comment) for providing my Acked-by then. Can you still fix that up in a final respin?
Thanks again, Daniel
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/30/129
| |