[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110822094558.GA2620@albatros>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:45:58 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: kmalloc() nofail allocations
Solar,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 13:38 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:24:29PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > Major problem with the idea in general:
> ...
> > Unlikely, but fully possible case - we want some memory and the OOM killer
> > kills us for our wish.
>
> How/why is this a major problem with the idea in general? I am probably
> missing something.
Initially I wanted to "wrap" kmalloc calls, which cannot fail in any
case. This would not change any mm code, but the caller (its
expectation).
Now I see that it's impossible without any mm code changes. It needs at
least __GFP_NOFAIL flag addition, which is explicitly marked as "no new
uses". Such kmalloc_nofail() wouldn't differ much from kmalloc(size,
flags | __GFP_NOFAIL).
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
