linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/12] mempolicy: remove confusing MPOL_MF

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:   Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:52:37 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
        Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] mempolicy: remove confusing MPOL_MF_LAZY dead code

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:30:51AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> v3.8 commit b24f53a0bea3 ("mm: mempolicy: Add MPOL_MF_LAZY") introduced
> MPOL_MF_LAZY, and included it in the MPOL_MF_VALID flags; but a720094ded8
> ("mm: mempolicy: Hide MPOL_NOOP and MPOL_MF_LAZY from userspace for now")
> immediately removed it from MPOL_MF_VALID flags, pending further review.
> "This will need to be revisited", but it has not been reinstated.
> 
> The present state is confusing: there is dead code in mm/mempolicy.c to
> handle MPOL_MF_LAZY cases which can never occur.  Remove that: it can be
> resurrected later if necessary.  But keep the definition of MPOL_MF_LAZY,
> which must remain in the UAPI, even though it always fails with EINVAL.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1553041659-46787-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com/
> links to a previous request to remove MPOL_MF_LAZY.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>

Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>