linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() consistent and document behaviour

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: <8760efjp98.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:34:27 +0100
From:   Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <steve.capper@....com>,
        <will.deacon@....com>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() consistent and document behaviour

Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:

> On Wed 26-07-17 14:33:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 26-07-17 13:11:46, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> [...]
>> > I've been running tests from mce-test suite and libhugetlbfs for similar
>> > changes we did on arm64. There could be assumptions that were not
>> > exercised but I'm not sure how to check for all the possible usages.
>> > 
>> > Do you have any other suggestions that can help improve confidence in
>> > the patch?
>> 
>> Unfortunatelly I don't. I just know there were many subtle assumptions
>> all over the place so I am rather careful to not touch the code unless
>> really necessary.
>> 
>> That being said, I am not opposing your patch.
>
> Let me be more specific. I am not opposing your patch but we should
> definitely need more reviewers to have a look. I am not seeing any
> immediate problems with it but I do not see a large improvements either
> (slightly less nightmare doesn't make me sleep all that well ;)). So I
> will leave the decisions to others.

I hear you - I'd definitely appreciate more eyes on the code change and
description.

Thanks for taking a look.