On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 02:51:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand 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. > > But probably I'm missing more details here why this all has to be so > complicated ;) Well, the only way to do that is to remove (__)GFP_NOFAIL and require either explicit _nofail variants without a way to pass gfp flags, or endless loops in the callers. I suggested the first one earlier, but no one liked it due to the API complexity and overhead. And I've not heard anyone arguing for the latter yet. One other way might be a compile time check that requires any GPF flag that contains (__)GFP_NOFAIL to be a compile time constants. This is true for many but not all callers currently.
