linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm/vmalloc.c: correct a few logic error for __insert_vmap

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: <c408c7df-3d1f-8985-a524-c6752e7809ba@zoho.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:55:26 +0800
From:   zijun_hu <zijun_hu@...o.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     zijun_hu@....com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm/vmalloc.c: correct a few logic error for
 __insert_vmap_area()

On 2016/9/22 7:15, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, zijun_hu wrote:
> 
>>> We don't support inserting when va->va_start == tmp_va->va_end, plain and 
>>> simple.  There's no reason to do so.  NACK to the patch.
>>>
>> i am sorry i disagree with you because
>> 1) in almost all context of vmalloc, original logic treat the special case as normal
>>    for example, __find_vmap_area() or alloc_vmap_area()
> 
> The ranges are [start, end) like everywhere else.  __find_vmap_area() is 
> implemented as such for the passed address.  The address is aligned in 
> alloc_vmap_area(), there's no surprise here.  The logic is correct in 
> __insert_vmap_area().
> 
1) is the desire behavior of __insert_vmap_area() conform with that mentioned
   in my comments?
2) which way of code implementation can present the desire purpose more clear
   and more understandable?