linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: Separate fault info out of 'struct vm

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: <20210114190021.GB13135@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:00:22 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: Separate fault info out of 'struct vm_fault'

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:16:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:01 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Try to clean this up by splitting the immutable fault information out
> > into a new 'struct vm_fault_info' which is embedded in 'struct vm_fault'
> > and will later be made 'const'. The vast majority of this change was
> > performed with a coccinelle patch:
> 
> You may have a reason for doing it this way, but my reaction to this
> was: "just make the new embedded struct unnamed".
> 
> Then you wouldn't need to do all the automated coccinelle changes.
> 
> Is there some reason you didn't do that, or just a "oh, I didn't think of
> it".

I tried that initially, e.g.

struct vm_fault {
	const struct {
		unsigned long address;
		...
	};
};

but I found that I had to make all of the members const to get it to work,
at which point the anonymous struct wasn't really adding anything. Did I
just botch the syntax?

Will