linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/28] mm: Add functions to zero portions of a folio

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: <YZZ3YJucR/WOpOaF@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:55:12 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/28] mm: Add functions to zero portions of a folio

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 09:07:07AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> I've started using 'next', or changing the code to make 'end' be the
> last element in the range the caller wants to act upon.  The thing is,
> those are all iterators, so 'next' fits, whereas it doesn't fit so well
> for range zeroing where that might have been all the zeroing we wanted
> to do.

Yeah, it doesn't really work so well for one of the patches in this
series:

                        if (buffer_new(bh)) {
...
                                        folio_zero_segments(folio,
                                                to, block_end,
                                                block_start, from);

("zero between block_start and block_end, except for the region
specified by 'from' and 'to'").  Except that for some reason the
ranges are specified backwards, so it's not obvious what's going on.
Converting that to folio_zero_ranges() would be a possibility, at the
expense of complexity in the caller, or using 'max' instead of 'end'
would also add complexity to the callers.

> Though.  'xend' (shorthand for 'excluded end') is different enough to
> signal that the reader should pay attention.  Ok, how about xend then?

Done!

@@ -367,26 +367,26 @@ static inline void memzero_page(struct page *page, size_t
offset, size_t len)
  * folio_zero_segments() - Zero two byte ranges in a folio.
  * @folio: The folio to write to.
  * @start1: The first byte to zero.
- * @end1: One more than the last byte in the first range.
+ * @xend1: One more than the last byte in the first range.
  * @start2: The first byte to zero in the second range.
- * @end2: One more than the last byte in the second range.
+ * @xend2: One more than the last byte in the second range.
  */
 static inline void folio_zero_segments(struct folio *folio,
-               size_t start1, size_t end1, size_t start2, size_t end2)
+               size_t start1, size_t xend1, size_t start2, size_t xend2)
 {
-       zero_user_segments(&folio->page, start1, end1, start2, end2);
+       zero_user_segments(&folio->page, start1, xend1, start2, xend2);
 }

 /**
  * folio_zero_segment() - Zero a byte range in a folio.
  * @folio: The folio to write to.
  * @start: The first byte to zero.
- * @end: One more than the last byte in the first range.
+ * @xend: One more than the last byte to zero.
  */
 static inline void folio_zero_segment(struct folio *folio,
-               size_t start, size_t end)
+               size_t start, size_t xend)
 {
-       zero_user_segments(&folio->page, start, end, 0, 0);
+       zero_user_segments(&folio->page, start, xend, 0, 0);
 }

 /**