linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm-treewide-redefine-max

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: <20230406154423.20a991bbdd47630fc38d94e8@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 15:44:23 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm-treewide-redefine-max_order-sanely-fix.txt

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 00:14:31 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:

> > > Shouldn't that be
> > > 		else
> > > 			order = 0;
> > > ?
> > 
> > +Mike.
> > 
> > No. start == 0 is MAX_ORDER-aligned. We want to free the pages in the
> > largest chunks alignment allows.
> 
> Right. Before the changes to MAX_ORDER it was
> 
> 		order = min(MAX_ORDER - 1UL, __ffs(start));
> 
> which would evaluate to 10.
> 
> I'd just prefer the comment to include the explanation about why we choose
> MAX_ORDER for start == 0. Say
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * __ffs() behaviour is undefined for 0 and we want to free the
> 	 * pages in the largest chunks alignment allows, so set order to
> 	 * MAX_ORDER when start == 0
> 	 */

Meanwhile I'd like to fix "various boot failures (hang) on arm targets"
in -next, so I queued up Kirill's informal fix for now.