linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm, oom: move task_will_free_mem up in the file to be used in process

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: <20210720160707.2332738708948f7d865d67c1@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 16:07:07 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, mhocko@...nel.org,
        mhocko@...e.com, rientjes@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, guro@...com, riel@...riel.com,
        minchan@...nel.org, christian@...uner.io, hch@...radead.org,
        oleg@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        luto@...nel.org, christian.brauner@...ntu.com, fweimer@...hat.com,
        jengelh@...i.de, timmurray@...gle.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm, oom: move task_will_free_mem up in the file
 to be used in process_mrelease

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:43:52 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 18.07.21 23:41, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > process_mrelease needs to be added in the CONFIG_MMU-dependent block which
> > comes before __task_will_free_mem and task_will_free_mem. Move these
> > functions before this block so that new process_mrelease syscall can use
> > them.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > changes in v2:
> > - Fixed build error when CONFIG_MMU=n, reported by kernel test robot. This
> > required moving task_will_free_mem implemented in the first patch
> > - Renamed process_reap to process_mrelease, per majority of votes
> > - Replaced "dying process" with "process which was sent a SIGKILL signal" in
> > the manual page text, per Florian Weimer
> > - Added ERRORS section in the manual page text
> > - Resolved conflicts in syscall numbers caused by the new memfd_secret syscall
> > - Separated boilerplate code wiring-up the new syscall into a separate patch
> > to facilitate the review process
> > 
> >   mm/oom_kill.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >   1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
> 
> TBH, I really dislike this move as it makes git blame a lot harder with 
> any real benefit.
> 
> Can't you just use prototypes to avoid the move for now in patch #2?
> 
> static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task);

This change makes the code better - it's silly to be adding forward
declarations just because the functions are in the wrong place.

If that messes up git-blame then let's come up with better tooling
rather than suffering poorer kernel code because the tools aren't doing
what we want of them.  Surely?