linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/12] selftests/mm: move uffd* routines from vm

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: <68549f29-fe41-04d4-f648-245f399c350b@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:11:52 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] selftests/mm: move uffd* routines from vm_util.c to
 uffd-common.c

On 6/2/23 08:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 06:33:56PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> This is where they belong, and this makes it cleaner to apply a
>> follow-up fix to the uffd builds.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
> 
> Thanks for further looking into this.
> 
> I'm fine to move it over if you think proper, but just to mention I had
> those in vm_utils.h just because I left all uffd specific tests shared code
> in uffd-common.h, so my plan was uffd-common.h shouldn't be included in
> most test cases except uffd tests.

I think we're in agreement that we want to only include uffd-common.h
where it's actually required. Likewise with the uffd*() routines. So I
would like to still move this over, yes, just to have things in their
best-named location.

> 
> I'm not sure whether we can just make your next patch of "ifndef.." into
> vm_utils.h to avoid the movement, or is it a must?
> 

Actually, I think I can drop the next patch entirely, based on
Muhammad's observation that we should be doing a "make headers"
to pull in those items. I'll have more to say over on that thread.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA