linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] mm/madvise: define and use madvise_behavior struct for madvise_do

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

Message-Id: <20250312172350.59632-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:23:50 -0700
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <howlett@...il.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	kernel-team@...a.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] mm/madvise: define and use madvise_behavior struct for madvise_do_behavior()

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:47:02 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:56:17PM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:17:40 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:23:14AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
[...]
> > > (I wonder if that'd be better as a typedef tbh?)
> >
> > Something like below?
> >
> >     typedef void *madvise_walk_arg;
> >
> > I think that could make the code easier to read.  But I feel the void pointer
> > is also not very bad for the current simple static functions use case, so I'd
> > like keep this as is if you don't mind.
> >
> > Please let me know if I'm missing your point.
> 
> No to be clear I meant the:
> 
> int (*visit)(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> 				   struct vm_area_struct **prev, unsigned long start,
> 				   unsigned long end, unsigned long arg)
> 
> Function pointer.

Thanks for clarifying!  And I agree this is a good idea.

> 
> But this is not a big deal and let's leave it as-is for now, we can address
> this later potentially! :)

Agreed, either! :)

[...]
> Thanks for being so flexible on the feedback! Appreciated :>)

Thank you for your nice and helpful reviews :)


Thanks,
SJ