linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/26] mm: merge parameters for change

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, 21 Feb 2019 12:32:37 -0500
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Maya Gokhale <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Martin Cracauer <cracauer@...s.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Marty McFadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/26] mm: merge parameters for change_protection()

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:56:17AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> change_protection() was used by either the NUMA or mprotect() code,
> there's one parameter for each of the callers (dirty_accountable and
> prot_numa).  Further, these parameters are passed along the calls:
> 
>   - change_protection_range()
>   - change_p4d_range()
>   - change_pud_range()
>   - change_pmd_range()
>   - ...
> 
> Now we introduce a flag for change_protect() and all these helpers to
> replace these parameters.  Then we can avoid passing multiple parameters
> multiple times along the way.
> 
> More importantly, it'll greatly simplify the work if we want to
> introduce any new parameters to change_protection().  In the follow up
> patches, a new parameter for userfaultfd write protection will be
> introduced.
> 
> No functional change at all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>

It would have been nice if this was a coccinelle patch, easier to
review.

Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>

> ---
>  include/linux/huge_mm.h |  2 +-
>  include/linux/mm.h      | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  mm/huge_memory.c        |  3 ++-
>  mm/mempolicy.c          |  2 +-
>  mm/mprotect.c           | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
>  5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

[...]