Re: [PATCH] x86, vdso32: fix out of memory handling setup vDSO

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> 
> > This patch add a correct out of memory handling for setup a 32 bit vDSO.
> > 
> > The patch is against tip commit 4e40112c4ff6a577dd06d92b2a54cdf06265bf74
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold <stefani@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> > index 0bc363a..e1171c2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> > @@ -134,8 +134,14 @@ int __init sysenter_setup(void)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	vdso32_size = (vdso_len + PAGE_SIZE - 1) / PAGE_SIZE;
> > -	vdso32_pages = kmalloc(sizeof(*vdso32_pages) * vdso32_size, GFP_ATOMIC); 
> > +
> > +	vdso32_pages = kmalloc(sizeof(*vdso32_pages) * vdso32_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
> 
> Why is this GFP_ATOMIC and not GFP_ATOMIC ?

Should be: Why is this GFP_ATOMIC and not GFP_KERNEL ?
 
> That code is called either from identify_boot_cpu(), where GFP_KERNEL
> is perfectly valid and from subsys_initcall(sysenter_setup) which is
> way late in the boot process where GFP_KERNEL is the RightThing.
> 
> Aside of that, why do we need to call it early for X86_32 and late for
> X86_64?
> 
> We need the vdso before we head off to user space, but not in the
> early boot process.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/