linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/11] mempolicy2, mbind2, and weighted interleave

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: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 14:06:13 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
	tj@...nel.org, corbet@....net, rakie.kim@...com,
	hyeongtak.ji@...com, honggyu.kim@...com, vtavarespetr@...ron.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, jgroves@...ron.com, ravis.opensrc@...ron.com,
	sthanneeru@...ron.com, emirakhur@...ron.com, Hasan.Maruf@....com,
	seungjun.ha@...sung.com, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hasan Al Maruf <hasanalmaruf@...com>, Hao Wang <haowang3@...com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>,
	Frank van der Linden <fvdl@...gle.com>,
	John Groves <john@...alactic.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/11] mempolicy2, mbind2, and weighted interleave

> >> > struct mpol_args {
> >> >         /* Basic mempolicy settings */
> >> >         __u16 mode;
> >> >         __u16 mode_flags;
> >> >         __s32 home_node;
> >> >         __u64 pol_maxnodes;
> >> 
> >> I understand that we want to avoid hole in struct.  But I still feel
> >> uncomfortable to use __u64 for a small.  But I don't have solution too.
> >> Anyone else has some idea?
> >>
> >
> > maxnode has been an `unsigned long` in every other interface for quite
> > some time.  Seems better to keep this consistent rather than it suddenly
> > become `unsigned long` over here and `unsigned short` over there.
> 
> I don't think that it matters.  The actual maximum node number will be
> less than maximum `unsigned short`.
> 

the structure will end up being

struct mpol_args {
	__u16 mode;
	__u16 mode_flags;
	__s32 home_node;
	__u16 pol_maxnodes;
	__u8  rsv[6];
	__aligned_u64 pol_nodes;
	__aligned_u64 il_weights;
}

If you're fine with that, i'll make the change.
~Gregory