linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "hugetlb: make hugetlb depends on SYSFS or SYSCTL"

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: <20250827194934.f30fe19856fc343005c9703f@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 19:49:34 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Cc: <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, <osalvador@...e.de>, <david@...hat.com>,
 <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert
 "hugetlb: make hugetlb depends on SYSFS or SYSCTL"

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 10:31:51 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> wrote:

> On 2025/8/27 11:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 11:09:55 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Commit f8142cf94d47 ("hugetlb: make hugetlb depends on SYSFS or SYSCTL")
> >> added dependency on SYSFS or SYSCTL but hugetlb can be used without SYSFS
> >> or SYSCTL. So this dependency is wrong and should be removed.
> >>
> >> This reverts commit f8142cf94d4737ea0c3baffb3b9bad8addcb9b6b.
> > 
> > f8142cf94d47 said:
> > 
> >     If CONFIG_SYSFS and CONFIG_SYSCTL are both undefined, hugetlb
> >     doesn't work now as there's no way to set max huge pages.  Make
> >     sure at least one of the above configs is defined to make hugetlb
> >     works as expected.
> > 
> > So there is now a way to set max huge pages?  A reference tot he
> > commit which made f8142cf94d47 unneeded might be helpful?
> 
> The commit is just wrong. It overlooked the scenario of using hugetlb through boot parameters
> when it was submitted.
> 

OK.  Could we please have a description of the user-visible effect and
a decision on whether we should backport the fix?