linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm, page_alloc: Fix has_unmovable

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: <20181220153731.mpc757cyf2zyr6fm@d104.suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:37:34 +0100
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        vbabka@...e.cz, pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com,
        rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, page_alloc: Fix has_unmovable_pages for HugePages

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 03:39:39PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Yes, you are missing that this code should be as sane as possible ;) You
> are right that we are only processing one pageorder worth of pfns and
> that the page order is bound to HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER _right_now_. But
> there is absolutely zero reason to hardcode that assumption into a
> simple loop, right?

Of course, it makes sense to keep the code as sane as possible.
This is why I said I was not against the change, but I wanted to
see if I was missing something else besides the assumption.

Thanks
-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3