linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] XArray: internal node is a xa_node when it is bigger than XA_ZERO

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: <20200330142708.GC22483@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 07:27:08 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] XArray: internal node is a xa_node when it is bigger
 than XA_ZERO_ENTRY

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:13:50PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 06:49:03AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 01:45:19PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:50:06AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:36:40PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> >> As the comment mentioned, we reserved several ranges of internal node
> >> >> for tree maintenance, 0-62, 256, 257. This means a node bigger than
> >> >> XA_ZERO_ENTRY is a normal node.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The checked on XA_ZERO_ENTRY seems to be more meaningful.
> >> >
> >> >257-1023 are also reserved, they just aren't used yet.  XA_ZERO_ENTRY
> >> >is not guaranteed to be the largest reserved entry.
> >> 
> >> Then why we choose 4096?
> >
> >Because 4096 is the smallest page size supported by Linux, so we're
> >guaranteed that anything less than 4096 is not a valid pointer.
> 
> I found this in xarray.rst:
> 
>   Normal pointers may be stored in the XArray directly.  They must be 4-byte
>   aligned, which is true for any pointer returned from kmalloc() and
>   alloc_page().  It isn't true for arbitrary user-space pointers,
>   nor for function pointers.  You can store pointers to statically allocated
>   objects, as long as those objects have an alignment of at least 4.
> 
> So the document here is not correct?

Why do you say that?

(it is slightly out of date; the XArray actually supports storing unaligned
pointers now, but that's not relevant to this discussion)