linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] mm: register_dev

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: <20150815090426.GE21033@lst.de>
Date:	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:04:26 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, boaz@...xistor.com, riel@...hat.com,
	linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, david@...morbit.com,
	mingo@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, mgorman@...e.de,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hch@....de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] mm: register_dev_memmap()

>  #endif /* _LINUX_KMAP_PFN_H */
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 8a4f24d7fdb0..07152a54b841 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -939,6 +939,7 @@ typedef struct {
>   * PFN_SG_CHAIN - pfn is a pointer to the next scatterlist entry
>   * PFN_SG_LAST - pfn references a page and is the last scatterlist entry
>   * PFN_DEV - pfn is not covered by system memmap
> + * PFN_MAP - pfn is covered by a device specific memmap
>   */
>  enum {
>  	PFN_MASK = (1UL << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1,
> @@ -949,6 +950,7 @@ enum {
>  #else
>  	PFN_DEV = 0,
>  #endif
> +	PFN_MAP = (1UL << 3),
>  };
>  
>  static inline __pfn_t pfn_to_pfn_t(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long flags)
> @@ -965,7 +967,7 @@ static inline __pfn_t phys_to_pfn_t(dma_addr_t addr, unsigned long flags)
>  
>  static inline bool __pfn_t_has_page(__pfn_t pfn)
>  {
> -	return (pfn.val & PFN_DEV) == 0;
> +	return (pfn.val & PFN_DEV) == 0 || (pfn.val & PFN_MAP) == PFN_MAP;

Shouldn't we simply not set the PFN_DEV flag instead of needing another
one to cancel it out?

I also wonder if it might be better to not require the __pfn_t and
SG rework patches before this series.
--
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/