linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] selftests/mm: add UFFDIO

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: <f3081d52-8bbc-4bc7-96d4-b086ca91975a@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:11:23 -0800
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        aarcange@...hat.com, lokeshgidra@...gle.com, peterx@...hat.com,
        ryan.roberts@....com, hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, jannh@...gle.com, zhangpeng362@...wei.com,
        bgeffon@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com, ngeoffray@...gle.com,
        jdduke@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] selftests/mm: add UFFDIO_MOVE ioctl test

On 12/11/23 12:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 07:00:32PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 11.12.23 18:32, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 05:53:59PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231209020144.244759-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com
> 
>>> I mean, I guess people who don't want to install the headers are just
>>> not going to be able to build a bunch of tests?  There definitely are a
>>> bunch of tests where it's not needed so I can see why people would not
>>> like being forced to do the headers step if they're only interested in
>>> those tests.
> 
>> Yes. And before that, people mostly had no clue that headers had to be
>> installed in order to compile successfully.
> 
>> So maybe a warning to give at least some hint might be reasonable.
> 
> That sounds sensible, especially if we could arrange to flag when the
> specific tests being built need it.


But the end result is messy: not everything builds in some cases. If
instead we went back to the little ifdef snippets, such as this (from
v5.1):

hugepage-shm.c:

     #ifndef SHM_HUGETLB
     #define SHM_HUGETLB 04000
     #endif

...then with a bit of one-time, manual effort, we could get everything
to work at all times. And that seems better, doesn't it?


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA