Re: [PATCH v5 03/38] kmsan: gfp: introduce __GFP_NO_KMSAN_SHADOW

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 06:40:29PM +0100, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:26 PM Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 5:19 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 25-03-20 17:12:14, glider@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > This flag is to be used by KMSAN runtime to mark that newly created
> > > > memory pages don't need KMSAN metadata backing them.
> > >
> > > I really dislike an idea of the gfp flag. If you need some form of
> > > exclusion for kmsan allocations then follow the pattern of memalloc_no{fs,io}_{save,restore}
> > > History tells us that single usecase gfp flags are too tempting to abuse
> > > and using incorrectly.
> >
> > Great idea, will do!
> > Guess PF_ flags isn't a scarce resource?
> 
> Actually, no, we are out of bits in current->flags already.
> I could introduce a separate flag into struct task, but that won't
> work in interrupt contexts - how do you solve that problem for FS/IO
> allocations?

I would suggest using bits in the section labelled:

        /* Unserialized, strictly 'current' */

since this doesn't need to be accessed from any other task.  Michal,
can we move PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO and NOFS to that area too?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux