linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce persistent memory pool

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2023082620-saint-petition-bb89@gregkh>
Date:   Sat, 26 Aug 2023 19:02:12 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Stanislav Kinsburskii <skinsburskii@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Stanislav Kinsburskii <stanislav.kinsburskii@...il.com>,
        Derek Kiernan <derek.kiernan@....com>,
        Dragan Cvetic <dragan.cvetic@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Madhavan Venkataraman <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Anthony Yznaga <anthony.yznaga@...cle.com>,
        "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        James Gowans <jgowans@...zon.com>,
        Anirudh Rayabharam <anrayabh@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Jinank Jain <jinankjain@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce persistent memory pool

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 11:15:08PM -0700, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 09:45:39AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 06:36:10PM -0700, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
> > > > > +#include <linux/bitmap.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/memblock.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <linux/pmpool.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define VERSION			1
> > > > 
> > > > In kernel code does not need versions.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Could you elaborate on this? Should kernel version be used as a backward
> > > compatitbility marker instead?
> > 
> > kernel versions should never be checked for in-kernel code, so I really
> > don't understand the question here sorry.
> > 
> > For code that is in the kernel tree, having "versions" on them (as many
> > drivers used to, and now only a few do), makes no sense, especially with
> > the stable/lts trees getting fixes for them over time as well.
> > 
> 
> This version is rather an ABI version. The idea is to make sure, that
> any future ABI change is explicit and reflected in the version, so it
> can be easily noticed in case of kexec to a kernel with an older
> version.
> But I guess there are other ways to make sure, that the ABI contract is
> the preserved.

Which ABI are you referring to here.  The user/kernel one?  Or the
kernel/hypervisor one?  Or something else?

There is no "numbering" of user/kernel apis, sorry.  APIs just don't
need that, you can handle things properly automatically without version
numbers (as again, that just does not work.)

thanks,

greg k-h