linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] lib/stackdepot: Move stack_record struct definition into the header

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a310c3cf-049d-4067-b950-f6abf9b5b098@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:30:23 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
 Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] lib/stackdepot: Move stack_record struct
 definition into the header

On 2/15/24 09:16, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 18:00, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de> wrote:
>>
>> In order to move the heavy lifting into page_owner code, this one
>> needs to have access to the stack_record structure, which right now
>> sits in lib/stackdepot.c.
>> Move it to the stackdepot.h header so page_owner can access
>> stack_record's struct fields.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
>> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> ---

>>  #define DEPOT_POOLS_CAP 8192
>> -/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle. */
>> +/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle */
> 
> Why this comment change? We lost the '.' -- for future reference, it'd
> be good to ensure unnecessary changes don't creep into the diff. This
> is just nitpicking, 

Agree with this part.

> and I've already reviewed this change, so no need
> to send a v+1.

But confused by this remark. There is a number of nontrivial changes in the
series from v8, and IIRC v8 was dropped from mm/ meanwhile, so a v+1 of the
whole series is expected and not fixups. Which means including patches that
were already reviewed. That's the usual process.