linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: move huge_pmd_set_accessed out of huge

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: <0357941c-d7ce-3ba9-c24f-9d2599429a8a@linaro.org>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:09:36 -0700
From:	"Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@...aro.org>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
	aarcange@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: move huge_pmd_set_accessed out of huge_memory.c

On 4/22/2016 2:48 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:56:07PM -0700, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 4/21/2016 12:30 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:00:11PM -0700, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> I didn't realize pmd_* functions are protected by
>>>> CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE on the most architectures before I made this
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> Before I fix all the affected architectures code, I want to check if you
>>>> guys think this change is worth or not?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yang
>>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2016 11:24 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> huge_pmd_set_accessed is only called by __handle_mm_fault from memory.c,
>>>>> move the definition to memory.c and make it static like create_huge_pmd and
>>>>> wp_huge_pmd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> On pte side we have the same functionality open-coded. Should we do the
>>> same for pmd? Or change pte side the same way?
>>
>> Sorry, I don't quite understand you. Do you mean pte_* functions?
>
> See handle_pte_fault(), we do the same for pte there what
> huge_pmd_set_accessed() does for pmd.

Thanks for directing to this code.

>
> I think we should be consistent here: either both are abstructed into
> functions or both open-coded.

I'm supposed functions sound better. However, do_wp_page has to be 
called with pte lock acquired. So, the abstracted function has to call it.

Thanks,
Yang


>