linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 10/42] x86/mm: Introduce _PAGE_SAVED

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:58:46 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        John Allen <john.allen@....com>, kcc@...gle.com,
        eranian@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
        dethoma@...rosoft.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com, christina.schimpe@...el.com,
        david@...hat.com, debug@...osinc.com, szabolcs.nagy@....com,
        broonie@...nel.org, Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/42] x86/mm: Introduce _PAGE_SAVED_DIRTY

Small nit.

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Rick Edgecombe
<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
>
> +static inline unsigned long mksaveddirty_shift(unsigned long v)
> +{
> +       unsigned long cond = !(v & (1 << _PAGE_BIT_RW));
> +
> +       v |= ((v >> _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY) & cond) << _PAGE_BIT_SAVED_DIRTY;
> +       v &= ~(cond << _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY);

I assume you checked that the compiler does the right thing here?

Because the above is kind of an odd way to do things, I feel.

You use boolean operators and then work with an "unsigned long" and
then shift things by hand. So you're kind of mixing two different
mental models.

To me, it would be more natural to do that 'cond' calculation as

        unsigned long cond = (~v >> _PAGE_BIT_RW) & 1;

and keep everything in the "bitops" domain.

I suspect - and hope - that the compiler is smart enough to turn that
boolean test into just the shift, but if that's the intent, why not
just write it with that in mind and not have that "both ways" model?

> +static inline unsigned long clear_saveddirty_shift(unsigned long v)
> +{
> +       unsigned long cond = !!(v & (1 << _PAGE_BIT_RW));

Same comment here.

             Linus