linux-kernel - Re: [v2 PATCH 3/5] mm: migrate: skip shared exec THP for NUMA balancing

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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:16:36 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc:     mhocko@...e.com, ziy@...dia.com, songliubraving@...com,
        mgorman@...e.de, jack@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 3/5] mm: migrate: skip shared exec THP for NUMA
 balancing

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:12:48AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> @@ -2142,6 +2151,10 @@ int migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
>  	int page_lru = page_is_file_lru(page);
>  	unsigned long start = address & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
>  
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS) &&
> +	    is_shared_exec_page(vma, page))
> +		goto out;

Why include the IS_ENABLED() check?  Once the ~50 patches I have pending
go in, shared executable THPs can exist without this option.  And can't
we have executables on tmpfs today without this option too?