Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-08-17 09:34:15, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Fri 04-08-17 13:12:04, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-08-17 09:34:15, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Fri 04-08-17 13:12:04, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > [...] >> >> > Btw. Should I

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Tue 08-08-17 09:34:15, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 04-08-17 13:12:04, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > Btw. Should I resend the patch or

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Tue 08-08-17 09:34:15, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 04-08-17 13:12:04, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > Btw. Should I resend the patch or somebody will take it from this email > >>

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 04-08-17 13:12:04, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> > Btw. Should I resend the patch or somebody will take it from this email >> > thread? >> >>

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 04-08-17 13:12:04, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> > Btw. Should I resend the patch or somebody will take it from this email >> > thread? >> >> No, unless your mailer mangled the

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Fri 04-08-17 13:12:04, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Btw. Should I resend the patch or somebody will take it from this email > > thread? > > No, unless your mailer mangled the patch I should be able to pull it > from this

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Fri 04-08-17 13:12:04, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Btw. Should I resend the patch or somebody will take it from this email > > thread? > > No, unless your mailer mangled the patch I should be able to pull it > from this thread. However,

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-08-17 14:17:26, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Thu 03-08-17 19:44:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > [...] >> >> When allocating thread is selected as an

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-08-17 14:17:26, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Thu 03-08-17 19:44:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > [...] >> >> When allocating thread is selected as an OOM victim, it gets TIF_MEMDIE. >> >>

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu 03-08-17 14:17:26, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 03-08-17 19:44:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > >> When allocating thread is selected as an OOM victim, it gets TIF_MEMDIE. > >> Since that function might be called from

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu 03-08-17 14:17:26, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 03-08-17 19:44:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > >> When allocating thread is selected as an OOM victim, it gets TIF_MEMDIE. > >> Since that function might be called from !in_interrupt()

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-08-17 19:44:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Thu 03-08-17 19:02:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> > > On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > > [CC Mel] >> > > > >> > > > On Wed 02-08-17

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-08-17 19:44:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Thu 03-08-17 19:02:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> > > On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > > [CC Mel] >> > > > >> > > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu 03-08-17 19:44:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 03-08-17 19:02:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > [CC Mel] > > > > > > > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu 03-08-17 19:44:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 03-08-17 19:02:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > [CC Mel] > > > > > > > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-08-17 19:02:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [CC Mel] > > > > > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: > > >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> while doing

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-08-17 19:02:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [CC Mel] > > > > > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: > > >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> while doing something completely

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu 03-08-17 19:02:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [CC Mel] > > > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> while doing something completely unrelated to

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu 03-08-17 19:02:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [CC Mel] > > > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > [CC Mel] > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> Hi, >>> while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a >>> really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On 2017/08/03 17:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > [CC Mel] > > On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> Hi, >>> while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a >>> really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage pattern in

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:11:52AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > The GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC use in SELinux appears to be limited > > to security/selinux/avc.c, and digging a bit, I'm guessing commit > > fa1aa143ac4a copied the combination from 6290c2c43973 ("selinux: tag > > avc cache alloc

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:11:52AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > The GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC use in SELinux appears to be limited > > to security/selinux/avc.c, and digging a bit, I'm guessing commit > > fa1aa143ac4a copied the combination from 6290c2c43973 ("selinux: tag > > avc cache alloc

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

[CC Mel] On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a > > really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage pattern in selinux, especially > > GFP_ATOMIC |

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

[CC Mel] On Wed 02-08-17 17:45:56, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a > > really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage pattern in selinux, especially > > GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a > really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage pattern in selinux, especially > GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC doesn't make much sense to me. GFP_ATOMIC > on

Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a > really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage pattern in selinux, especially > GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC doesn't make much sense to me. GFP_ATOMIC > on its own allows to

suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

Hi, while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage pattern in selinux, especially GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC doesn't make much sense to me. GFP_ATOMIC on its own allows to access memory reserves while the later flag tells we cannot use

suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

Hi, while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage pattern in selinux, especially GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC doesn't make much sense to me. GFP_ATOMIC on its own allows to access memory reserves while the later flag tells we cannot use