Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 01/30/2017 08:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> [...]
> > > > So to answer your second email with the bpf and netfilter hunks, why
> > > > not replacing them with kvmalloc() and __GFP_NORETRY flag and add that
> > > > big fat FIXME comment above there, saying explicitly that __GFP_NORETRY
> > > > is not harmful though has only /partial/ effect right now and that full
> > > > support needs to be implemented in future. That would still be better
> > > > that not having it, imo, and the FIXME would make expectations clear
> > > > to anyone reading that code.
> > >
> > > Well, we can do that, I just would like to prevent from this (ab)use
> > > if there is no _real_ and _sensible_ usecase for it. Having a real bug
> >
> > Understandable.
> >
> > > report or a fallback mechanism you are mentioning above would justify
> > > the (ab)use IMHO. But that abuse would be documented properly and have a
> > > real reason to exist. That sounds like a better approach to me.
> > >
> > > But if you absolutely _insist_ I can change that.
> >
> > Yeah, please do (with a big FIXME comment as mentioned), this originally
> > came from a real bug report. Anyway, feel free to add my Acked-by then.
>
> Thanks! I will repost the whole series today.

Looks like I got only Cc'ed on the cover letter of your v3 from today
(should have been v4 actually?). Anyway, I looked up the last patch
on lkml [1] and it seems you forgot the __GFP_NORETRY we talked about?
At least that was what was discussed above (insisting on __GFP_NORETRY
plus FIXME comment) for providing my Acked-by then. Can you still fix
that up in a final respin?

Thanks again,
Daniel

  [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/30/129