linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/testing/vma: add missing function stub

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: <20250528155218.a8b755912d1eed25148c59b4@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 15:52:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes via B4 Relay
 <devnull+lorenzo.stoakes.oracle.com@...nel.org>, "Liam R. Howlett"
 <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn
 <jannh@...gle.com>, Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/testing/vma: add missing function stub

On Wed, 28 May 2025 15:15:39 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes via B4 Relay <devnull+lorenzo.stoakes.oracle.com@...nel.org> wrote:

> From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
> 
> The hugetlb fix introduced in commit ee40c9920ac2 ("mm: fix copy_vma()
> error handling for hugetlb mappings") mistakenly did not provide a stub for
> the VMA userland testing, which results in a compile error when trying to
> build this.

Thanks, I'll add the Fixes: and the cc:stable (because ee40c9920ac2 had
cc:stable).

> Provide this stub to resolve the issue.
> 
> ---
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>

SOB goes above the "^---$", please ;)

> --- a/tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h
> @@ -1461,4 +1461,9 @@ static inline int __call_mmap_prepare(struct file *file,
>  	return file->f_op->mmap_prepare(desc);
>  }
>  
> +static inline void fixup_hugetlb_reservations(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> +	(void)vma;

<Curiousity> Was this statement found to be needed?  Normally we just
use an empty function body in such cases.

> +}
> +
>  #endif	/* __MM_VMA_INTERNAL_H */