linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] devtmpfs: actually reclaim some init memory

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: <20210312162718.GC11243@lst.de>
Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:27:18 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] devtmpfs: actually reclaim some init memory

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 11:30:27AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Currently gcc seems to inline devtmpfs_setup() into devtmpfsd(), so
> its memory footprint isn't reclaimed as intended. Mark it noinline to
> make sure it gets put in .init.text.
> 
> While here, setup_done can also be put in .init.data: After complete()
> releases the internal spinlock, the completion object is never touched
> again by that thread, and the waiting thread doesn't proceed until it
> observes ->done while holding that spinlock.
> 
> This is now the same pattern as for kthreadd_done in init/main.c:
> complete() is done in a __ref function, while the corresponding
> wait_for_completion() is in an __init function.

I'm not sure if this matters in any way, but it does look fine to me:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>