linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] mempolicy: convert MPOL constants to enum

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:42:01 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc:	clameter@....com, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] mempolicy: convert MPOL constants to enum

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

> However, once inside the kernel, how we store this flag in struct mempolicy,
> and how we pass it about between kernel routines, is our choice.
> 
> We can leave it packed, and unpack and repack it each time we consider the
> flag and mode bits, or we can store and pass it as separate flags.
> 
> I urge us to consider handling it as separate flags within the kernel
> because it most clearly and explicitly represents what is going on logically.
> There are two different kinds of flags here, the original mempolicy modes,
> and these meta modes (MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES, being the first example) which
> affect the nodemask intepretation.
> 

Again, if you did it this way, the lower MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT bits of the new 
'flags' member would always be zero if you are still going to use the 
MPOL_F_* defines from linux/mempolicy.h to do your bit testing.

I do not subscribe to the theory that just because we have a couple extra 
bytes of space somewhere in struct mempolicy that we have to use it 
immediately.

> Cramming both these into a single int is necessary across the kernel-user API,
> but it's an obfuscation that is not needed, therefore better avoided, within
> the kernel code.
> 

It makes the kernel code simpler, in a way.

Now we only have to pass a single actual among functions that include both 
the mode and optional flags (there are a lot of them and they span not 
only the VM but also filesystem code).  The catch is that we have to use a 
mpol_mode() wrapper for mode conditionals or switch statements.

But testing the flags is just as easy as

	if (mode & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) {
		...
	}

That test would remain unchanged (except for s/mode/flags/) if flags were 
stored in a separate member.

So by storing them both in an 'unsigned short' member of struct mempolicy:

 - we don't use any additional memory (and we can use those two extra
   bytes you identified earlier later), and

 - we only have to pass a single actual to many different functions that
   require both the mode and optional mode flags.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/