Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 02:31:48PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> (adding Johannes)
>>
>> duoming@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>> >> > --- a/lib/kobject.c
>> >> > +++ b/lib/kobject.c
>> >> > @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ int kobject_set_name_vargs(struct kobject *kobj, const char *fmt,
>> >> > if (kobj->name && !fmt)
>> >> > return 0;
>> >> >
>> >> > - s = kvasprintf_const(GFP_KERNEL, fmt, vargs);
>> >> > + s = kvasprintf_const(GFP_ATOMIC, fmt, vargs);
>> >> > if (!s)
>> >> > return -ENOMEM;
>> >> >
>> >> > @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ int kobject_set_name_vargs(struct kobject *kobj, const char *fmt,
>> >> > if (strchr(s, '/')) {
>> >> > char *t;
>> >> >
>> >> > - t = kstrdup(s, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >> > + t = kstrdup(s, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> >> > kfree_const(s);
>> >> > if (!t)
>> >> > return -ENOMEM;
>> >>
>> >> Please no, you are hurting the whole kernel because of one odd user.
>> >> Please do not make these calls under atomic context.
>> >
>> > Thanks for your time and suggestions. I will remove the gfp_t
>> > parameter of dev_coredumpv in order to show it could not be used in
>> > atomic context.
>>
>> In a way it would be nice to be able to call dev_coredump from atomic
>> contexts, though I don't know how practical it actually is.
>
> Dumping core information from atomic context feels very very wrong to
> me.
>
> Why not just not do that?
I was wondering why dev_coredumpm() has the gfp parameter in the first
place. But yeah, removing gfp from devcoredump API altogether sounds
like the best thing to do.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
