linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zram: extra zram_get_element call in zram_read_from

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

Message-ID: <b43c5a9b-7ac4-46d9-989e-f64a49366ef4@linux.dev>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:40:39 +0300
From:   Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: extra zram_get_element call in
 zram_read_from_zspool()

On 11/8/23 06:32, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (23/11/08 06:16), Vasily Averin wrote:
>> On 11/8/23 05:49, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>>> On (23/11/06 22:55), Vasily Averin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'element' and 'handle' are union in struct zram_table_entry.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 8e19d540d107 ("zram: extend zero pages to same element pages")
>>>
>>> Sorry, what exactly does it fix?
>>
>> It removes unneeded call of zram_get_element() and unneeded variable 'value'.
> 
> Yes, what the patch does is pretty clear. It doesn't *fix* anything per se.

Ok, I'm sorry for miscommunication.
I'm agree, it is just minor cleanup.
"Fixes:" tag just here was pointed to the patch added this problem.
Perhaps it was better to specify something like "Introduced-by:" tag instead.

>> zram_get_element() == zram_get_handle(), they both access the same field of the same struct zram_table_entry,
>> no need to read it 2nd time. 
>> 'value' variable is not required, 'handle' can be used instead.
>>
>> I hope this explain why element/handle union should be removed: it confuses reviewers.
> 
> I do not agree with "union should be removed" part.
> 
> In this particular case - using handle as the page pattern (element)
> is in fact quite confusing. The visual separation of `handle` and `element`
> is helpful.

It's at your discretion, you know better.

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin