linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] mm: introduce put_user

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: <dc2499a6-4475-bea3-605a-7778ffcf76fc@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:24:07 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, <john.hubbard@...il.com>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder
 versions

On 3/19/19 11:12 AM, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, john.hubbard@...il.com wrote:
> 
>> We seem to have pretty solid consensus on the concept and details of the
>> put_user_pages() approach. Or at least, if we don't, someone please speak
>> up now. Christopher Lameter, especially, since you had some concerns
>> recently.
> 
> My concerns do not affect this patchset which just marks the get/put for
> the pagecache. The problem was that the description was making claims that
> were a bit misleading and seemed to prescribe a solution.
> 
> So lets get this merged. Whatever the solution will be, we will need this
> markup.
> 

Sounds good. Do you care to promote that thought into a formal ACK for me? :)


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA