On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:51 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19.08.24 14:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 02:33:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> It should all be caught during testing either way. And if some OOT module > >> does something nasty, that's not our responsibility. > >> > >> BUG_ON is not a way to write assertions into the code. > > > > So you'd rather create exploits than crashing on a fundamental API > > violation? That's exactly what the series is trying to fix. > > I'd rather have a sane API that doesn't even allow this level of > flexibility with NOFAIL. yes, i have already sent a RFC enforcing direct_reclamation: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg394659.html somehow, it is not ready yet. i think Christoph prefers scope api rather than GFP_NOFAIL which definitely has __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM set. I guess you know I have at least 5 series running, so it will happen soon though. > > But probably I'm missing more details here why this all has to be so > complicated ;) enforcing direct_reclamation is right and will work for a reasonable size. but for this overflow size, even if we enforce direct_reclamation in GFP_NOFAIL, we are still failing. > > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb >
