linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm/arch: Fix a few collide definition on private use of VM_FAULT

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: <Y+BFjQDBIFq5ih+t@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 00:10:53 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm/arch: Fix a few collide definition on private use
 of VM_FAULT_*

On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 06:17:01PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> I noticed a few collision usage on VM_FAULT_* definition in the page fault
> path on arm/arm64/s390 where the VM_FAULT_* can overlap with the generic
> definition of vm_fault_reason.
> 
> The major overlapped part being VM_FAULT_HINDEX_MASK which is used only by
> the hugetlb hwpoisoning.
> 
> I'm not sure whether any of them can have a real impact, but that does not
> look like to be expected.  I didn't copy stable, if anyone thinks it should
> please shoot.  Nor did I test them in any form - I just changed the
> allocations from top bits and added a comment for each of them.

This seems like a bad way to do it.  Why not just put these VM_FAULT_*
definitions in linux/mm_types.h?  Then we'll see them when adding new
VM_FAULT codes.  Sure, they won't be used by every architecture, but
so what?