linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] mm: convert FPB_IGNORE_* into FPB_HONOR

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: <fd825d4f-76b5-40ee-bad5-634b4d80506c@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:30:13 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka
 <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
 Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>, Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>,
 Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>, Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>,
 Ying Huang <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>,
 Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] mm: convert FPB_IGNORE_* into FPB_HONOR_*

On 27.06.25 18:28, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:55:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Honoring these PTE bits is the exception, so let's invert the meaning.
>>
>> With this change, most callers don't have to pass any flags.
>>
>> No functional change intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> 
> This is a nice change, it removes a lot of code I really didn't enjoy
> looking at for introducing these flags all over the place.
> 
> But a nit on the naming below, I'm not a fan of 'honor' here :)
> 
>> ---
>>   mm/internal.h  | 16 ++++++++--------
>>   mm/madvise.c   |  3 +--
>>   mm/memory.c    | 11 +++++------
>>   mm/mempolicy.c |  4 +---
>>   mm/mlock.c     |  3 +--
>>   mm/mremap.c    |  3 +--
>>   mm/rmap.c      |  3 +--
>>   7 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
>> index e84217e27778d..9690c75063881 100644
>> --- a/mm/internal.h
>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
>> @@ -202,17 +202,17 @@ static inline void vma_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>>   /* Flags for folio_pte_batch(). */
>>   typedef int __bitwise fpb_t;
>>
>> -/* Compare PTEs after pte_mkclean(), ignoring the dirty bit. */
>> -#define FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY		((__force fpb_t)BIT(0))
>> +/* Compare PTEs honoring the dirty bit. */
>> +#define FPB_HONOR_DIRTY		((__force fpb_t)BIT(0))
> 
> Hm not to be petty but... :)
> 
> I'm not sure I find 'honor' very clear here. Ignore is very clear, 'honor' (God
> the British English in me wants to say honour here but stipp :P) doesn't
> necessarily tell you what is going to happen.
> 
> Perhaps PROPAGATE? or OBEY?

RESPECT? :)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb