linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] hugetlbfs: check for shareable lock before calling huge_pmd

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aOz6wqdZcEY8-ufB@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 15:12:34 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Deepanshu Kartikey <kartikey406@...il.com>, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, broonie@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	syzbot+f26d7c75c26ec19790e7@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] hugetlbfs: check for shareable lock before calling
 huge_pmd_unshare()

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 11:54:00AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.10.25 11:33, Deepanshu Kartikey wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > That makes a lot of sense - moving the assertions after the early return
> > checks is cleaner since the locks are only needed when actual unsharing
> > work happens.
> > 
> > Should I send a v5 with your suggested change?
> 
> Let's wait if the hugetlb maintainers have any preference.

Yes, now that I look again I think your suggestion makes more sense and
its much cleaner :-)

 

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs