linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] fs/proc/page: use a folio in stable_page

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]

Message-ID: <ZU6lmvMpSfKjjYB3@memverge.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2023 16:50:18 -0500
From:   Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
To:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] fs/proc/page: use a folio in stable_page_flags()

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:33:19AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> Replace nine compound_head() calls with one page_folio().
>

Sorry to echo Matthew, but this commit message is extremely
insufficient and just outright wrong.

Single pass through, here's the real change list:

1) changes PageFLAG() calls to folio_test_FLAG calls
2) changes compound_head() flag checks to folio_test_FLAG checks
3) change page count to folio ref count
   -- without even looking... is this even correct? Need more
      explanation here. Is page count === folio ref count?

So there are really 3 changes in this patch set that should be broken
out separately, even if they all depend on folio flags, because they
need separate explanation and validation for correctness.

> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
> ---
>  fs/proc/page.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>