linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 04/10] mm: frontswap: split out __frontswap_unuse

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]

Message-ID: <e82083d1-af9f-4766-992c-926413f02423@default>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 04/10] mm: frontswap: split out __frontswap_unuse_pages

> From: Sasha Levin [mailto:levinsasha928@...il.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] mm: frontswap: split out __frontswap_unuse_pages
> 
> > > +	assert_spin_locked(&swap_lock);
> >
> > Normally, we should use this assertion when we can't find swap_lock is hold or not easily
> > by complicated call depth or unexpected use-case like general function.
> > But I expect this function's caller is very limited, not complicated.
> > Just comment write down isn't enough?
> 
> Is there a reason not to do it though? Debugging a case where this
> function is called without a swaplock and causes corruption won't be
> easy.

I'm not sure of the correct kernel style but I like the fact
that assert_spin_locked both documents the lock requirement and tests
it at runtime.

I don't know the correct kernel syntax but is it possible
to make this code be functional when the kernel "debug"
option is on, but a no-op when "debug" is disabled?
IMHO, that would be the ideal solution.
 
> > > +	for (type = swap_list.head; type >= 0; type = si->next) {
> > > +		si = swap_info[type];
> > > +		si_frontswap_pages = atomic_read(&si->frontswap_pages);
> > > +		if (total_pages_to_unuse < si_frontswap_pages) {
> > > +			pages = pages_to_unuse = total_pages_to_unuse;
> > > +		} else {
> > > +			pages = si_frontswap_pages;
> > > +			pages_to_unuse = 0; /* unuse all */
> > > +		}
> > > +		/* ensure there is enough RAM to fetch pages from frontswap */
> > > +		if (security_vm_enough_memory_mm(current->mm, pages)) {
> > > +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> >
> >
> > Nipick:
> > I am not sure detailed error returning would be good.
> > Caller doesn't matter it now but it can consider it in future.
> > Hmm,
> 
> Is there a reason to avoid returning a meaningful error when it's pretty
> easy?

I'm certainly not an expert on kernel style (as this whole series
of patches demonstrates :-) but I think setting a meaningful
error code is useful documentation and plans for future users
that might use the error code.
--
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/