linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] mm: smaller folio_pte

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: <6092c44e-8800-47ec-9cfb-a1f062ea122a@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 11:00:48 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, 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 2/4] mm: smaller folio_pte_batch() improvements

On 02.07.25 10:51, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 10:48:20AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 02.07.25 10:42, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:55:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Let's clean up a bit:
>>>>
>>>> (1) No need for start_ptep vs. ptep anymore, we can simply use ptep
>>>>
>>>> (2) Let's switch to "unsigned int" for everything
>>>>
>>>> (3) We can simplify the code by leaving the pte unchanged after the
>>>>       pte_same() check.
>>>>
>>>> (4) Clarify that we should never exceed a single VMA; it indicates a
>>>>       problem in the caller.
>>>>
>>>> No functional change intended.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> Hi David :-),
>>>
>>> I have to confess that I fell in the same trap as Lorenzo wrt.
>>> __pte_batch_clear_ignored changing the pte value.
>>> So I'm not sure if it would be nice to place a little comment in
>>> __pte_batch_clear_ignored claryfing that pte's value remains unchanged ?
>>
>> I mean, that's how all our pte modification functions work, really? :)
>>
>> Thanks!
> 
> I mean, it might be that me and Oscar are similarly 'challenged' in this
> respect :P (high 5 Oscar!) but I think the issue here is that it's sort of
> a compounded use, and in fact some functions do modify stuff, which is why
> we end up with all the ptep ptent etc. fun.
> 
> Up to you re: comment, but I think maybe in cases where it's a reallly
> compounded set of stuff it's potentially useful.
> 
> But obviously we still do do this all over the place elsewhere with no
> comment...

Well, if you are not passing in a *value* and not a pointer to a 
function, you would not expect for that *value* to change? :)

Yes, once we pass pointers it's different. Or when we're using weird macros.

Adding a comment that a function will not modify a value that is ... 
passed-by-value? Maybe it's just me that doesn't get why that should be 
particularly helpful :)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb