linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] hugetlb: Pass struct vm_fault through to hugetlb_handle

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: <ZdbCfLo85Gi_a7OI@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 03:41:48 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] hugetlb: Pass struct vm_fault through to
 hugetlb_handle_userfault()

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:47:30PM -0800, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> Now that hugetlb_fault() has a struct vm_fault, have
> hugetlb_handle_userfault() use it instead of creating one of its own.
> 
> This lets us reduce the number of arguments passed to
> hugetlb_handle_userfault() from 7 to 3, cleaning up the code and stack.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vishal Moola (Oracle) <vishal.moola@...il.com>
> ---
>  mm/hugetlb.c | 38 +++++++++-----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

I love the look of this ...

> @@ -6116,7 +6098,8 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
>  			struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  			struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t idx,
>  			unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep,
> -			pte_t old_pte, unsigned int flags)
> +			pte_t old_pte, unsigned int flags,
> +			struct vm_fault *vmf)

Should we remove vma, address, idx and flags?