linux-kernel - Re: your mail

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: <87wn198fdw.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2023 23:16:11 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: your mail

Liam!

On Mon, May 15 2023 at 15:27, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> [230510 15:01]:
>>Also the
>> documentation of index talks about a range, while in reality the index
>> is updated on a succesful search to the index of the found entry plus one.
>
> This is a range based tree, so the index is incremented beyond the last
> entry which would return the entry.  That is, if you search for 5 and
> there is an entry at 4-100, the index would be 101 after the search -
> or, one beyond the range.  If you have single entries at a specific
> index, then index would be equal to last and it would be one beyond the
> index you found - but only because index == last in this case.

Thanks for the explanation

>> 
>> Fix similar issues for mt_find_after() and mt_prev().
>> 
>> Remove the completely confusing and pointless "Note: Will not return the
>> zero entry." comment from mt_for_each() and document @__index correctly.
>
> The zero entry concept is an advanced API concept which allows you to
> store something that cannot be seen by the mt_* family of users, so it
> will not be returned and, instead, it will return NULL.  Think of it as
> a reservation for an entry that isn't fully initialized.  Perhaps it
> should read "Will not return the XA_ZERO_ENTRY" ?

That makes actually sense.

>> --- a/include/linux/maple_tree.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/maple_tree.h
>> @@ -659,10 +659,8 @@ void *mt_next(struct maple_tree *mt, uns
>>   * mt_for_each - Iterate over each entry starting at index until max.
>>   * @__tree: The Maple Tree
>>   * @__entry: The current entry
>> - * @__index: The index to update to track the location in the tree
>> + * @__index: The index to start the search from. Subsequently used as iterator.
>>   * @__max: The maximum limit for @index
>> - *
>> - * Note: Will not return the zero entry.
>
> This function "will not return the zero entry", meaning it will return
> NULL if xa_is_zero(entry).

Ack.

>> + * Takes RCU read lock internally to protect the search, which does not
>> + * protect the returned pointer after dropping RCU read lock.
>>   *
>> - * Handles locking.  @index will be incremented to one beyond the range.
>> + * In case that an entry is found @index contains the index of the found
>> + * entry plus one, so it can be used as iterator index to find the next
>> + * entry.
>
> What about:
> "In case that an entry is found @index contains the last index of the
> found entry plus one"

Something like that, yes.

Let me try again.

Thanks,

        tglx