linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: use mem_map_offset instead of mem_map

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:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 17:10:48 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Cheng Li <lic121@...natelecom.cn>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: use mem_map_offset instead of mem_map_next

On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:07:03 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:

> On 09/05/22 06:09, Cheng Li wrote:
> > To handle discontiguity case, mem_map_next() has a parameter named
> > `offset`. As a function caller, one would be confused why "get
> > next entry" needs a parameter named "offset". The other drawback of
> > mem_map_next() is that the callers must take care of the map between
> > parameter "iter" and "offset", otherwise we may get an hole or
> > duplication during iteration. So we use mem_map_offset instead of
> > mem_map_next.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cheng Li <lic121@...natelecom.cn>
> > Fixes: 69d177c2fc70 ("hugetlbfs: handle pages higher order than MAX_ORDER")
> 
> The Fixes tag implies there is a user visible bug.  I do not believe this is
> the case here.  Is there a user visible bug?

A Fixes: with a cc:stable would indicate a user-visible bug.  But IMO a
bare Fixes: is simply a when-to-stop guide to backporters - a
convenience.  And, I suppose, it has some documentation benefit.

And if people are really that interested, they can read the dang
changelog ;)