linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm] tracing: incorrect gfp

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:   Sun, 8 May 2022 01:28:58 +0300
From:   Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, kernel@...nvz.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm] tracing: incorrect gfp_t conversion

On 5/7/22 22:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 22:02:05 +0300 Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org> wrote:
>> +	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_KERNEL,		"GFP_KERNEL"},		\
>> +	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_NOFS,		"GFP_NOFS"},		\
> 
> This got all repetitive, line-wrappy and ugly :(
> 
> What do we think of something silly like this?

> --- a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h~tracing-incorrect-gfp_t-conversion-fix
> +++ a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
> @@ -13,53 +13,57 @@
>   * Thus most bits set go first.
>   */
>  
> +#define FUL __force unsigned long
> +
>  #define __def_gfpflag_names						\
> -	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE,		"GFP_TRANSHUGE"},	\
> -	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT,	"GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT"}, \
...
> +	{(FUL)GFP_TRANSHUGE,		"GFP_TRANSHUGE"},	\
> +	{(FUL)GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT,	"GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT"}, \


I think it's a good idea, and I regret it was your idea and not mine.

Should I resend my patch with these changes or would you prefer 
to keep your patch as a separate one?

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin