linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] mm/mmap: Drop __SXXX/_

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:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:37:39 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Cc:     "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] mm/mmap: Drop __SXXX/__PXXX macros from across
 platforms



On 6/16/22 10:52, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 16/06/2022 à 06:09, Anshuman Khandual a écrit :
>> __SXXX/__PXXX macros is an unnecessary abstraction layer in creating the
>> generic protection_map[] array which is used for vm_get_page_prot(). This
>> abstraction layer can be avoided, if the platforms just define the array
>> protection_map[] for all possible vm_flags access permission combinations.
>>
>> This series drops __SXXX/__PXXX macros from across platforms in the tree.
>> First it makes protection_map[] array private (static) on platforms which
>> enable ARCH_HAS_VM_GET_PAGE_PROT, later moves protection_map[] array into
>> arch for all remaining platforms (!ARCH_HAS_VM_GET_PAGE_PROT), dropping
>> the generic one. In the process __SXXX/__PXXX macros become redundant and
>> thus get dropped off completely. I understand that the diff stat is large
>> here, but please do suggest if there is a better way. This series applies
>> on v5.19-rc1 and has been build tested for multiple platforms.
> 
> Maybe this patch could be split with one patch per architecture. All you 
> have to do for that is to guard the generic protection_map declaration 
> with #ifdef __S000 , then the architectures can be migrated one by one.
> 
>>
>> The CC list for this series has been reduced to just minimum, until there
>> is some initial agreement.
> 
> Agreement with who if people don't know this series exists ?
> 
> I think you should keep the architecture lists in copy allthough you 
> don't include individual maintainers/reviewers for now.

Sure, will do.

> 
>>
>> - Anshuman
>>
>> Changes in V3:
>>
>> - Fix build issues on powerpc and riscv
>>
>> Changes in V2:
> 
> I guess V2 was only sent to linux-mm as well ? Too bad.

I was in a dilemma, whether to first arrive at something more acceptable or
just engage all stake holders from the beginning. I understand your concern
and hence will copy architecture mailing lists from next time onward.