linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: remove meaningless variable avoid

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: <2900fea0-e77c-8c6a-1529-c95ded5319e6@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:41:58 -0800
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: remove meaningless variable avoid_reserve

Please CC Andrew on hugetlb patches as they need to go through his tree.

On 1/16/21 1:26 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> The variable avoid_reserve is meaningless because we never changed its
> value and just passed it to alloc_huge_page(). So remove it to make code
> more clear that in hugetlbfs_fallocate, we never avoid reserve when alloc
> hugepage yet.

One might argue that using a named variable makes the call to alloc_huge_page
more clear.  I do not disagree with the change,  However, there are some
subtle reasons why alloc_huge_page is called with 'avoid_reserve = 0' from
fallocate.  Therefore, I would prefer that a comment be added above the call
in addition to this change.  See below.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
> ---
>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> index 88751e35e69d..23ad6ed8b75f 100644
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -680,7 +680,6 @@ static long hugetlbfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset,
>  		 */
>  		struct page *page;
>  		unsigned long addr;
> -		int avoid_reserve = 0;
>  
>  		cond_resched();
>  
> @@ -717,7 +716,7 @@ static long hugetlbfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset,
>  		}
>  
>  		/* Allocate page and add to page cache */

Perhaps, change comment to read:

		/*
		 * Allocate page without setting the avoid_reserve argument.
		 * There certainly are no reserves associated with the
		 * pseudo_vma.  However, there could be shared mappings with
		 * reserves for the file at the inode level.  If we fallocate
		 * pages in these areas, we need to consume the reserves
		 * to keep reservation accounting consistent.
		 */

-- 
Mike Kravetz

> -		page = alloc_huge_page(&pseudo_vma, addr, avoid_reserve);
> +		page = alloc_huge_page(&pseudo_vma, addr, 0);
>  		hugetlb_drop_vma_policy(&pseudo_vma);
>  		if (IS_ERR(page)) {
>  			mutex_unlock(&hugetlb_fault_mutex_table[hash]);
>