linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm_notifiers: Rename invalidate

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, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:20 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, ajd@...ux.ibm.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev, jhubbard@...dia.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        nicolinc@...dia.com, npiggin@...il.com, robin.murphy@....com,
        seanjc@...gle.com, will@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        zhi.wang.linux@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm_notifiers: Rename invalidate_range notifier

On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:57:12 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 05:56:15PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> > index b466172..48c81b9 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> > @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ static inline void tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
> >  		return;
> >  
> >  	tlb_flush(tlb);
> > -	mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(tlb->mm, tlb->start, tlb->end);
> > +	mmu_notifier_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(tlb->mm, tlb->start, tlb->end);
> >  	__tlb_reset_range(tlb);
> 
> Does this compile? I don't see
> "mmu_notifier_invalidate_secondary_tlbs" ?

Seems this call gets deleted later in the series.

> But I think the approach in this series looks fine, it is so much
> cleaner after we remove all the cruft in patch 4, just look at the
> diffstat..

I'll push this into -next if it compiles OK for me, but yes, a redo is
desirable please.