[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b2deed42-1252-62e1-0d82-beafb917d0ad@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 09:11:38 -0800
From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 07/26] x86/mm: Remove _PAGE_DIRTY_HW from kernel RO
pages
On 12/7/2020 8:36 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 08:21:52AM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> Kernel read-only PTEs are setup as _PAGE_DIRTY_HW. Since these become
>> shadow stack PTEs, remove the dirty bit.
>
> This commit message is laconic to say the least. You need to start
> explaining what you're doing because everytime I look at a patch of
> yours, I'm always grepping the SDM and looking forward in the patchset,
> trying to rhyme up what that is all about.
>
> Like for this one. I had to fast-forward to the next patch where all
> that is explained. But this is not how review works - each patch's
> commit message needs to be understandable on its own because when
> they land upstream, they're not in a patchset like here. And review
> should be done in the order the patches are numbered - not by jumping
> back'n'forth.
>
> So please think of the readers of your patches when writing those commit
> messages. Latter are *not* write-only and not unimportant.
>
> And those readers haven't spent copious amounts of time on the
> technology so being more verbose and explaining things is a Good
> Thing(tm). Don't worry about explaining too much - better too much than
> too little.
>
> And last but not least, having understandable and properly written
> commit messages increases the chances of your patches landing upstream
> considerably.
>
> Thx.
>
Thanks for your feedback. I will improve the commit logs.
--
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists