linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimize mremap() for large folios

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: <ca31408b-d882-48da-b69a-4b7ea7a0ac5e@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 11:26:48 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
 jannh@...gle.com, pfalcato@...e.de, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterx@...hat.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
 mingo@...nel.org, libang.li@...group.com, maobibo@...ngson.cn,
 zhengqi.arch@...edance.com, baohua@...nel.org, anshuman.khandual@....com,
 willy@...radead.org, ioworker0@...il.com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
 baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, ziy@...dia.com, hughd@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimize mremap() for large folios

On 09.05.25 10:44, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 10:57:05AM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/05/25 12:05 am, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>> Dev - a general comment here - but let's slow things down a little please
>>> :)
>>>
>>> The mprotect() version of this is still outstanding fixes and likely will
>>> need quite a bit of checking before we can ensure it's stabilised.
>>>
>>> And now we have this mremap() series as well which also has had quite a few
>>> quite significant issues that have needed addressing.
>>>
>>> So can we try to focus on one at a time, and really try to nail down the
>>> series before moving on to the next?
>>>
>>> We also have outstanding review on the v1, which has now been split, which
>>> does happen sometimes but perhaps suggests that it'd work better if you
>>> waited a couple days or such to ensure things are settled before sending a
>>> new version when there's quite a bit of feedback?
>>
>> Sure, I should have waited my bad, I usually do, this time I was in a haste
>> with both series for no reason :( thanks for your detailed replies btw!
> 
> No problem, I've done this in the past myself haha (sometimes even faster
> than you did :P), just a case of tweaking things to fit the mm process :)

We've all been there, desperately wanting to flush the todo list ... :)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb