On 19.08.24 14:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 02:51:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 19.08.24 14:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 02:33:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

It should all be caught during testing either way. And if some OOT module
does something nasty, that's not our responsibility.

BUG_ON is not a way to write assertions into the code.

So you'd rather create exploits than crashing on a fundamental API
violation?  That's exactly what the series is trying to fix.

I'd rather have a sane API that doesn't even allow this level of
flexibility with NOFAIL.

But probably I'm missing more details here why this all has to be so
complicated ;)

Well, the only way to do that is to remove (__)GFP_NOFAIL and require
either explicit _nofail variants without a way to pass gfp flags, or
endless loops in the callers.  I suggested the first one earlier, but
no one liked it due to the API complexity and overhead.  And I've not
heard anyone arguing for the latter yet.

Right, and and "allocate more than even possible" case is extremely ugly.

One other way might be a compile time check that requires any GPF
flag that contains (__)GFP_NOFAIL to be a compile time constants.
This is true for many but not all callers currently.

Right.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb