linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm/z3fold.c: Lock z3fold page before _

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: <20190702152409.21c6c3787d125d61fb47840a@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:24:09 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Henry Burns <henryburns@...gle.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
        Vitaly Vul <vitaly.vul@...y.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Xidong Wang <wangxidong_97@....com>,
        Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/z3fold.c: Lock z3fold page before
 __SetPageMovable()

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:17:47 -0700 Henry Burns <henryburns@...gle.com> wrote:

> > > > > +       if (can_sleep) {
> > > > > +               lock_page(page);
> > > > > +               __SetPageMovable(page, pool->inode->i_mapping);
> > > > > +               unlock_page(page);
> > > > > +       } else {
> > > > > +               if (!WARN_ON(!trylock_page(page))) {
> > > > > +                       __SetPageMovable(page, pool->inode->i_mapping);
> > > > > +                       unlock_page(page);
> > > > > +               } else {
> > > > > +                       pr_err("Newly allocated z3fold page is locked\n");
> > > > > +                       WARN_ON(1);

The WARN_ON will have already warned in this case.

But the whole idea of warning in this case may be undesirable.  We KNOW
that the warning will sometimes trigger (yes?).  So what's the point in
scaring users?

Also, pr_err(...)+WARN_ON(1) can basically be replaced with WARN(1, ...)?

> > > > > +               }
> > > > > +       }