On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:02:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 16-12-16 10:02:10, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:47:21PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > 01b3f52157ff ("bpf: fix allocation warnings in bpf maps and integer
> > > overflow") has added checks for the maximum allocateable size. It
> > > (ab)used KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX for that purpose. While this is not incorrect
> > > it is not very clean because we already have KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE for this
> > > very reason so let's change both checks to use KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE instead.
> > >
> > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Nack until the patches 1 and 2 are reversed.
>
> I do not insist on ordering. The thing is that it shouldn't matter all
> that much. Or are you worried about bisectability?
This patch 1 strongly depends on patch 2 !
Therefore order matters.
The patch 1 by itself is broken.
The commit log is saying
'(ab)used KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX for that purpose .. use KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE instead'
that is also incorrect. We cannot do that until KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE is fixed.
So please change the order and fix the commit log to say that KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE
is actually valid limit now.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>