Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:45:03 +0100 | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc |
| |
On 01/30/2017 05:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 30-01-17 17:15:08, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> 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?). > > Yes > >> Anyway, I looked up the last patch >> on lkml [1] and it seems you forgot the __GFP_NORETRY we talked about? > > I misread your response. I thought you were OK with the FIXME > explanation. > >> 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? > > I will probably just drop that last patch instead. I am not convinced > that we should bend the new API over and let people mimic that > throughout the code. I have just seen too many examples of this pattern > already. > > I would also like to prevent the next rebase, unless there any issues > with some patches of course.
Ok, I'm fine with that as well.
Thanks, Daniel
| |