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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 2 May 2020 13:29:11 +0000
From:   Wei Yang <>
To:     Andrew Morton <>
Cc:     Wei Yang <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/swapfile.c: count won't be bigger than

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:48:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>On Fri,  1 May 2020 01:52:59 +0000 Wei Yang <> wrote:
>> When the condition is true, there are two possibilities:
>I'm struggling with this one.
>>    1. count == SWAP_MAP_BAD
>I'm not sure what 2. is trying to say.  For a start, (SWAP_MAP_MAX &
>COUNT_CONTINUED) is zero.  I guess it meant "|"?

Oops, you are right. It should be (SWAP_MAP_MAX | COUNT_CONTINUED).

Sorry for the confusion.

>Also, the return value documentation says we return EINVAL for migration
>entries.  Where's that happening, or is the comment out of date?

Not paid attention to this.

Take look into the code, I don't find a relationship between the swap count
and migration. Seems we just make a migration entry but not duplicate it.  
If my understanding is correct.

>> The first case would be filtered by the first if in __swap_duplicate().
>> And the second case means this swap entry is for shmem. Since we never
>> do another duplication for shmem swap entry. This won't happen neither.

Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

Powered by blists - more mailing lists