linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: rename the oldflags and parameter in memalloc_flags

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: <CACSyD1NZPY3wS4WnuP-UpH3vuLWLS=eXxQLtqcO+1g7VNmBx1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:50:39 +0800
From: Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: rename the oldflags and parameter in memalloc_flags_*()

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 7:43 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:03:28 +0800 Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com> wrote:
>
> > The variable name oldflags can indeed be misleading, because
> > it does not store the complete original value of flags.
> > Instead, it records which flags from the given set are not
> > currently set. So rename it.
> >
>
> Your email client is mangling the patches in strange ways.  Please send
> yourself a patch, figure out why it didn't apply?

Thank you for pointing that out. I’ll check the email formatting on my side.
Sorry for the trouble caused.

>
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> > @@ -322,21 +322,21 @@ static inline void might_alloc(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >  }
> >
> >  /**
> > - * memalloc_flags_save - Add a PF_* flag to current->flags, save old value
> > + * memalloc_flags_save - Add a PF_* flag to current->flags, return saved flags mask
> >   *
> >   * This allows PF_* flags to be conveniently added, irrespective of current
> >   * value, and then the old version restored with memalloc_flags_restore().
> >   */
> > -static inline unsigned memalloc_flags_save(unsigned flags)
> > +static inline unsigned int memalloc_flags_save(unsigned int flags_mask)
> >  {
> > -     unsigned oldflags = ~current->flags & flags;
> > -     current->flags |= flags;
> > -     return oldflags;
> > +     unsigned int saved_flags_mask = ~current->flags & flags_mask;
> > +
> > +     current->flags |= flags_mask;
> > +     return saved_flags_mask;
> >  }
> >
> > -static inline void memalloc_flags_restore(unsigned flags)
> > +static inline void memalloc_flags_restore(unsigned int flags_mask)
> >  {
> > -     current->flags &= ~flags;
> > +     current->flags &= ~flags_mask;
> >  }
>
> I guess so.  Maybe.  A bit.  Kent, what do you think?