linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] zram: Introduce an aged idle interface

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: <CADyq12xAc4Y5P4n69oahPNs6M55cUb6=7Nku=J5iEOJVMBOPTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:15:26 -0400
From:   Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] zram: Introduce an aged idle interface

> Also this?
>
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c~zram-introduce-an-aged-idle-interface-v5-fix
> +++ a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -309,9 +309,8 @@ static void mark_idle(struct zram *zram,
>                 zram_slot_lock(zram, index);
>                 if (zram_allocated(zram, index) &&
>                                 !zram_test_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_UNDER_WB)) {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ZRAM_MEMORY_TRACKING
> +                       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZRAM_MEMORY_TRACKING))
>                                 is_idle = (!cutoff || ktime_after(cutoff, zram->table[index].ac_time));
> -#endif
>                         if (is_idle)
>                                 zram_set_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_IDLE);
>                 }
> _
>

Hi Andrew,
As written that patch won't compile when
CONFIG_ZRAM_MEMORY_TRACKING=n, my guess is that the compiler pass that
removes the dead branch only happens after it attempts to compile the
branch itself. So it appears that even though IS_ENABLED(..) always
evaluates to 0, the compile will fail because table[index].ac_time
does not exist. You should get an error like this:

drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c:314:57: error: no member named 'ac_time'
in 'struct zram_table_entry'
                                                             (!cutoff
|| ktime_after(cutoff, zram->table[index].ac_time)))

Brian