From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f197.google.com (mail-qt0-f197.google.com [209.85.216.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A516B025E for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt0-f197.google.com with SMTP id w39so67852593qtw.0 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:40:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from www62.your-server.de (www62.your-server.de. [213.133.104.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b36si4465170qte.59.2016.12.16.15.40.33 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:40:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <58547B6C.6000905@iogearbox.net> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 00:40:28 +0100 From: Daniel Borkmann MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: do not use KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX References: <20161215164722.21586-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161215164722.21586-2-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161216180209.GA77597@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> <20161216220235.GD7645@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161216232340.GA99159@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <20161216232340.GA99159@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Alexei Starovoitov , Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Cristopher Lameter , Andrew Morton , Alexei Starovoitov , netdev@vger.kernel.org On 12/17/2016 12:23 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:02:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Fri 16-12-16 10:02:10, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:47:21PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>> From: Michal Hocko >>>> >>>> 01b3f52157ff ("bpf: fix allocation warnings in bpf maps and integer >>>> overflow") has added checks for the maximum allocateable size. It >>>> (ab)used KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX for that purpose. While this is not incorrect >>>> it is not very clean because we already have KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE for this >>>> very reason so let's change both checks to use KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE instead. >>>> >>>> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko >>> >>> Nack until the patches 1 and 2 are reversed. >> >> I do not insist on ordering. The thing is that it shouldn't matter all >> that much. Or are you worried about bisectability? > > This patch 1 strongly depends on patch 2 ! > Therefore order matters. > The patch 1 by itself is broken. > The commit log is saying > '(ab)used KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX for that purpose .. use KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE instead' > that is also incorrect. We cannot do that until KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE is fixed. > So please change the order and fix the commit log to say that KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE > is actually valid limit now. Michal, please also Cc netdev on your v2. Looks like the set originally didn't Cc it (at least I didn't see 2/2). Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org