linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] um: Abandon the _PAGE

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: <5f129f05-1d50-4076-aae6-99638dce35b9@antgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:51:26 +0800
From: "Tiwei Bie" <tiwei.btw@...group.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, richard@....at,
 anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com
Cc: linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] um: Abandon the _PAGE_NEWPROT bit

Hi Johannes,

On 2024/10/11 15:38, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi Tiwei,
> 
> So kind of a nit, but if the resulting code looks like this:
> 
>> @@ -184,17 +172,14 @@ static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte)
>>  {
>>  	if (likely(pte_get_bits(pte, _PAGE_RW)))
>>  		pte_clear_bits(pte, _PAGE_RW);
>> 	return pte;
>>  }
> 
> then the if really isn't needed?
> 
> Same for all the others, I guess.

Makes sense. It looks a bit odd. Will drop the if. Thanks for the review!

Regards,
Tiwei

> 
> johannes