linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] mm/arch: Provide pud

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: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:24:04 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
	WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] mm/arch: Provide pud_pfn() fallback

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 02:25:20PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:

> > I'd say the BUILD_BUG has done it's job and found an issue, fix it by
> > not defining pud_leaf? I don't see any calls to pud_leaf in loongarch
> > at least
> 
> Yes, that sounds better too to me, however it means we may also risk other
> archs that can fail another defconfig build.. and I worry I bring trouble
> to multiple such cases.  Fundamentally it's indeed my patch that broke
> those builds, so I still sent the change and leave that for arch developers
> to decide the best for the archs.

But your change causes silent data corruption if the code path is
run.. I think we are overall better to wade through the compile time
bugs from linux-next. Honestly if there were alot then I'd think there
would be more complaints already.

Maybe it should just be a seperate step from this series.

Jason