On Fri 09-11-18 19:24:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/11/09 19:10, Vlastimil Babka wrote:>>>> + * reclaim >= MAX_ORDER
> areas which will never succeed. Callers may
> >>>> + * be using allocators in order of preference for an area that
> >>>> is
> >>>> + * too large.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (order >= MAX_ORDER) {
> >>>
> >>> Also, why not to add BUG_ON(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL); here?
> >>
> >> Because we do not want to blow up the kernel just because of a stupid
> >> usage of the allocator. Can you think of an example where it would
> >> actually make any sense?
> >>
> >> I would argue that such a theoretical abuse would blow up on an
> >> unchecked NULL ptr access. Isn't that enough?
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
>
> If someone has written a module with __GFP_NOFAIL for an architecture
> where PAGE_SIZE == 2048KB, and someone else tried to use that module on
> another architecture where PAGE_SIZE == 4KB. You are saying that
> triggering NULL pointer dereference is a fault of that user's ignorance
> about MM. You are saying that everyone knows internal of MM. Sad...
What kind of argument is this? Seriously! We do consider GFP_NOFAIL
problematic even for !order-0 requests and warn appropriately. Talking
about anything getting close to MAX_ORDER is just a crazy talk. In any
case this is largely tangential to the issue reported here.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
