linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -V2 1/2] mempolicy: Rename MPOL_F_MORON to MPOL_F

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: <20201030082517.GD1478@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:25:17 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 1/2] mempolicy: Rename MPOL_F_MORON to MPOL_F_MOPRON

On Fri 30-10-20 15:27:51, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed 28-10-20 10:34:10, Huang Ying wrote:
> >> To follow code-of-conduct better.
> >
> > This is changing a user visible interface and any userspace which refers
> > to the existing name will fail to compile unless I am missing something.
> 
> Although these flags are put in uapi, I found these flags are actually
> internal flags used in "flags" field of struct mempolicy, they are never
> used as flags for any user space API.  I guess they are placed in uapi
> header file to guarantee they aren't conflict with MPOL_MODE_FLAGS.

You are right. I have missed that. The comment in the header even explains
that. Anyway the placement is rather unusual and I think that those
flags do not belong there.
 
> > Have you checked how many applications would be affected?
> 
> Based on above analysis, I think there is no application that will be
> affected.
> 
> > Btw I find "follow CoC better" a very weak argument without further
> > explanation.
> 
> That is the only reason for the patch.  If nobody thinks the change is
> necessary, I can just drop the patch.

Well, to be honest I do not see any problem with the naming.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs