linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Real pagecache iterators

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: <20160427142749.5b77d723a0b97164f04a91f3@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:27:49 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Real pagecache iterators

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:38:11 -0800 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com> wrote:

> Introduce for_each_pagecache_page() and related macros, with the goal of
> replacing most/all uses of pagevec_lookup().
> 
> For the most part this shouldn't be a functional change. The one functional
> difference with the new macros is that they now take an @end parameter, so we're
> able to avoid grabbing pages in __find_get_pages() that we'll never use.
> 
> This patch only does some of the conversions, the ones I was able to easily test
> myself - the conversions are mechanical but tricky enough they generally warrent
> testing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/inode.c         | 261 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  include/linux/pagevec.h |  67 ++++++++++++-
>  mm/filemap.c            |  76 +++++++++-----
>  mm/page-writeback.c     | 148 +++++++++++----------------
>  mm/swap.c               |  33 +-----
>  mm/truncate.c           | 259 +++++++++++++++++------------------------------
>  6 files changed, 380 insertions(+), 464 deletions(-)

hm, it's a lot of churn in sensitive areas for an 80 line saving.  What
do others think?