linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] hugetlb: Factorize hugetlb architecture primitives

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:16:29 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Alex Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux@...linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will.deacon@....com, tony.luck@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
        ralf@...ux-mips.org, paul.burton@...s.com, jhogan@...nel.org,
        jejb@...isc-linux.org, deller@....de, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
        paulus@...ba.org, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp, dalias@...c.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] hugetlb: Factorize hugetlb architecture
 primitives

On 07/26/2018 04:46 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> writes:
> 
>> On 07/20/2018 11:37 AM, Alex Ghiti wrote:
>>> Does anyone have any suggestion about those patches ?
>>
>> I only took a quick look.  From the hugetlb perspective, I like the
>> idea of moving routines to a common file.  If any of the arch owners
>> (or anyone else) agree, I can do a review of the series.
> 
> The conversions look pretty good to me. If you want to give it a review
> then from my point of view it could go in -mm to shake out any bugs.

Nothing of significance found in a review.  As others have suggested,
the (cross)compiler may be better at finding issues than human eyes.

I also suggest it be added to -mm.
-- 
Mike Kravetz