linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Assigning NULL to gfn of dax_direct

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: <CAPcyv4hgk89NKGhmZ1Z3XsGFzJAn1y+46WJn_61r8rj5bmqv6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:48:40 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Huaisheng Ye <yehs2007@...o.com>
Cc:     linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        colyli <colyli@...e.de>, NingTing Cheng <chengnt@...ovo.com>,
        Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@...ovo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Assigning NULL to gfn of dax_direct_access if useless

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Huaisheng Ye <yehs2007@...o.com> wrote:
> From: Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@...ovo.com>
>
> Changes since v1 [1]:
> * Collect Jan's reviewed-by.
> * According to Dan's suggestion, update the unit test infrastructure
>   tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c for checking the validity of gfn.
>
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/4/81
>
> ---
>
> Some functions within fs/dax don't need to get gfn from direct_access.

Any reason you are calling it 'gfn'? I'm assuming that is a typo and
it should be 'pfn'.