linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11] mm: slub: move sysfs slab alloc/free interfaces to debugfs

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, 8 Jun 2021 23:43:34 +0530
From:   Faiyaz Mohammed <faiyazm@...eaurora.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, glittao@...il.com,
        vinmenon@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11] mm: slub: move sysfs slab alloc/free interfaces to
 debugfs



On 6/8/2021 11:05 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 6/8/21 7:11 PM, Faiyaz Mohammed wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/8/2021 5:20 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 11:45 AM Faiyaz Mohammed <faiyazm@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> alloc_calls and free_calls implementation in sysfs have two issues,
>>>> one is PAGE_SIZE limitation of sysfs and other is it does not adhere
>>>> to "one value per file" rule.
>>>>
>>>> To overcome this issues, move the alloc_calls and free_calls
>>>> implementation to debugfs.
>>>>
>>>> Debugfs cache will be created if SLAB_STORE_USER flag is set.
>>>>
>>>> Rename the alloc_calls/free_calls to alloc_traces/free_traces,
>>>> to be inline with what it does.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Faiyaz Mohammed <faiyazm@...eaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> It seems you missed the version bump along with changelog.
>>> Note, some maintainers (actually quite many I think) are using tools
>>> to fetch up the patches and two patches with the same version is a
>>> problem. Hence I do not consider it a nit-pick.
>>>
>> Hmmm, I think to avoid same version problem I have to push same patch
>> with new version number and thank you for your patience.
> 
> I *think* Andrew wouldn't have this issue, so maybe resend only if he says it's
> needed.
Sure, I will send if he ask.
> On the other hand I did have troubles to apply the last version locally, patch
> (tool) complained of patch (file) being malformed at the end. Did you add or
> delete lines from it after generating the patch? I had to use the recountdiff
Yes, I added one line manually, I think that causes the issue.

> tool to fix this. If you're going to resend, please make sure it's without the
> same issue.
> 
Okay

>> Thanks and regards,
>> Mohammed Faiyaz
>>
>