linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: rename walk_page_range

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: <f7a69885-7bf6-456b-81fe-3c6a5a29b470@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 16:48:51 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: rename walk_page_range_mm()

On 09.11.25 12:16, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> Make it clear we're referencing an unsafe variant of this function
> explicitly.
> 
> This is laying the foundation for exposing more such functions and
> maintaining a consistent naming scheme.

IIUC, the "unsafe" variants only bypass the check_ops_valid() check, 
correct?

Staring at the code, I wonder if we should then rename check_ops_valid() 
to something like "are_ops_safe()" [or something similar along the lines 
of safe vs. unsafe]

Because now we will have valid vs. unsafe which is a bit confusing, at 
least for me.

-- 
Cheers

David