linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 4/9] shmem: remove shmem_get_partial

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y8gjUhcRYkRuxLDq@bfoster>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:50:26 -0500
From:   Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] shmem: remove shmem_get_partial_folio

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 05:43:58PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 08:57:05AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > This all seems reasonable to me at a glance, FWIW, but I am a little
> > curious why this wouldn't split up into two changes. I.e., switch this
> > over to filemap_get_entry() to minimally remove the FGP_ENTRY dependency
> > without a behavior change, then (perhaps after the next patch) introduce
> > SGP_FIND in a separate patch. That makes it easier to review and
> > potentially undo if it happens to pose a problem in the future. Hm?
> 
> The minimal change to filemap_get_entry would require to add the
> lock, check mapping and retry loop and thus add a fair amount of
> code.  So I looked for ways to avoid that and came up with this
> version.  But if there is a strong preference to first open code
> the logic and then later consolidate it I could do that.
> 

Ok. Not a strong preference from me. I don't think it's worth
complicating that much just to split up.

Brian