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: <fed573c9-2045-e13b-15b5-91df2446ef42@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 17:43:19 -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 15:52, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 6/2/23 15:38, Peter Xu wrote:
> ...
>>> 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.
>>
>> Sorry I didn't get it - e.g. I'm confused why we need to export
>> uffd_test_ops into ksm unit test, it doesn't make much sense to me..
> 
> Oh, I see what you mean, finally. Yes. ksm should not need that.
> 

...whoops, correction, our very own David Hildenbrand recently made
changes that contradict the claim that "ksm and uffd selftests are
independent". In fact, ksm now *intentionally* depends upon uffd, as of
commit 93fb70aa5904c ("selftests/vm: add KSM unmerge tests"), aha!

That added commit added a call to test_unmerge_uffd_wp(), to
ksm_functional_tests.c .

So this needs to stay approximately as-is, it seems.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA