linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] MM updates for 6.10-rc1

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHA1TA0DqO31yVW18uPVh8zXMHyvxxokyBV4vFqt4-q1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 14:16:21 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] MM updates for 6.10-rc1

On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 11:02 AM Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 09:48:49AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 08:32, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm going to take this pull and fix up the cases I find, but I'm not
> > > happy with this kind of trivial C preprocessor misuse.
> >
> > I did some other maco handling cleanup too and tried to regularize
> > some of this all, and it seems to work for me. But somebody should
> > double-check, and it's possible these patterns should all be
> > regularized further with a few helper macros for the whole "add
> > __GFP_ZERO to argument list" or similar.
>
> I just double checked slab.h, gfp.h and percpu.h, and scanned through
> the diff vs. 6.9 for include/linux/ - looks like you got everything.

Sorry about that. Yeah, I could not find any other place that was not
fixed. Thanks for noticing and fixing them!

>
> I think we can slim down the API surface of slab.h some more too, we're
> now exposing three different ways of saying "trace/track this allocation
> here": _trace, _track_caller and _noprof vs. normal; I think after a
> cycle we can see if the old variants are still needed or can be
> consolidated somehow.
>