On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:56:04AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 09-11-18 18:41:53, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2018/11/09 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > @@ -4364,6 +4353,17 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned
> > > int order, int preferred_nid,
> > > gfp_t alloc_mask; /* The gfp_t that was actually used for allocation */
> > > struct alloc_context ac = { };
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * In the slowpath, we sanity check order to avoid ever trying to
> >
> > Please keep the comment up to dated.
>
> Does this following look better?
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 9fc10a1029cf..bf9aecba4222 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -4354,10 +4354,8 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int
> order, int preferred_nid,
> struct alloc_context ac = { };
>
> /*
> - * In the slowpath, we sanity check order to avoid ever trying to
> - * reclaim >= MAX_ORDER areas which will never succeed. Callers may
> - * be using allocators in order of preference for an area that is
> - * too large.
> + * There are several places where we assume that the order value is sane
> + * so bail out early if the request is out of bound.
> */
> if (order >= MAX_ORDER) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN));
if (unlikely()) might help
>
> > I don't like that comments in OOM code is outdated.
> >
> > > + * 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?
> --
Balbir Singh.
