linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page

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: <CAMj1kXF9crOKFaGfzcj9T4n58XAr7n85YZO0x7J1DcRG2JrfcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:49:53 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jungseung Lee <js07.lee@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
> >    __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
> >
> > 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
> >    __do_page_fault().
> >
> > 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
> >
> > 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
>
> This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
> to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
>
> Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
> many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
> the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
> transformation approach is way easier to review.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
> I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
>

Agreed. If your commit message contains an enumeration of things the
patch does, it is a very strong hint that each of those things needs
to be a separate patch if at all possible.