linux-kernel - Can we remove the checking of CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL in __vm_insert

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+PpKPkAmnVhkwgZU84udJ0BEi+Pd4UOBaJJDVmvd+P=Depbng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:37:17 +0800
From:   Hao Lee <haolee.swjtu@...il.com>
To:     npiggin@...il.com
Cc:     dan.j.wiilliams@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Can we remove the checking of CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL in __vm_insert_mixed?

Sorry, the previous email is corrupted. This is a resending.

In the current code, if the architecture supports PTE_SPECIAL,
__vm_insert_mixed() becomes a simple encapsulation of insert_pfn()
because it always calls insert_pfn() and never calls insert_page(). This
behavior is inconsistent with the function's name. As described in commit
423bad600443 ("mm: add vm_insert_mixed"), this function is designed to
supports _both_ raw pfns and pfns with struct page, but in architecture
with PTE_SPECIAL, it treats the latter as the former. So, I think we'd
better remove the checking of CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL to make the
behavior consistent for all architectures. If my understanding is right,
I can submit a patch to fix this. Thanks.

Regards,
Hao Lee