linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm,hugetlb: Document the reason to lock the folio in the faulting path

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: <aFF0_zt2ICVKtlXb@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:00:31 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
	Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Gavin Guo <gavinguo@...lia.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm,hugetlb: Document the reason to lock the folio in
 the faulting path

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 03:42:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Yes. As an alternative, keep locking it in the caller and only unlock in the
> !anon case?

Yes, that crossed my mind too, and I think that that would the cleanest way.
Since hugetlb_no_page() will be the only one taking the lock, we can drop it
there for !anon case, and put a fat (maybe not so fat :-)?) explaining the
deal.

thanks for the insights David! 


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs