Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-30 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 01/30/2017 05:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 30-01-17 17:15:08, Daniel Borkmann wrote: 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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-30 Thread 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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-30 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 30-01-17 17:15:08, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-30 Thread Michal Hocko
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 ad

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-27 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] But realistically, how big is this problem really? Is it really worth it? You said this is an admin only interface and admin can kill the machine by OO

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-27 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > But realistically, how big is this problem really? Is it really worth > > it? You said this is an admin only interface and admin can kill the > > machine by OOM and other means already. > > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... I

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 26-01-17 14:40:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > If you disagree I can dro

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... > > > > > > If we could conso

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... If we could consolidate these spots with kvmalloc() eventually, I'm all for it. But even if __GF

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 26-01-17 04:14:37, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:32 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So I have folded the following to the patch 1. It is in line with > > kvmalloc and hopefully at least tell more than the current code. > [] > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > [] > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Joe Perches
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:32 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > So I have folded the following to the patch 1. It is in line with > kvmalloc and hopefully at least tell more than the current code. [] > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c [] > @@ -1741,6 +1741,13 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... > > If we could consolidate these spots with kvmalloc() eventually, I'm > all for it. But even if __GFP_NORETRY is not covered down to all >

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 26-01-17 12:04:13, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 11:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Bork

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then it would unfortunately (parti

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 01/26/2017 11:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], r

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > [...] > > > > I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > > > > it

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] > > > I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > > > it would unfortunately (partially) reintroduce the issue that

RE: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread David Laight
From: Daniel Borkmann > Sent: 26 January 2017 09:37 ... > >> I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > >> it would unfortunately (partially) reintroduce the issue that was fixed. > >> If you look above at flags, they're also passed to __vmalloc() to not > >> trigger

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-26 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-25 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > [...] > > > > > > Are ther

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-25 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [...] Are there any more comments? I would really appreciate to hear from networking folks

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

2017-01-25 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > >