linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] Introduce the pagetable_operations and associated helper macros.

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, 20 Mar 2007 21:52:14 -0700
From:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Introduce the pagetable_operations and associated helper macros.

Adam Litke wrote:
>>  	struct vm_operations_struct * vm_ops;
>> +	const struct pagetable_operations_struct * pagetable_ops;

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:18:30PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Can you remind me why this isn't in vm_ops?
> Also, it is going to be hugepage-only, isn't it? So should the naming be
> changed to reflect that? And #ifdef it...

ISTR potential ppc64 users coming out of the woodwork for something I
didn't recognize the name of, but I may be confusing that with your
patch. I can implement additional users (and useful ones at that)
needing this in particular if desired.


Adam Litke wrote:
>> +struct pagetable_operations_struct {
>> +	int (*fault)(struct mm_struct *mm,

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:18:30PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I got dibs on fault ;)
> My callback is a sanitised one that basically abstracts the details of the
> virtual memory mapping away, so it is usable by drivers and filesystems.
> You actually want to bypass the normal fault handling because it doesn't
> know how to deal with your virtual memory mapping. Hmm, the best suggestion
> I can come up with is handle_mm_fault... unless you can think of a better
> name for me to use.

Two fault handling methods callbacks raise an eyebrow over here at least.
I was vaguely hoping for unification of the fault handling callbacks.


-- wli
-
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/