linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: Add guard support

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: <9cb0a602-69ca-400f-890c-e9dd5b44f53b@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:06:14 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Fushuai Wang <fushuai.wang@...ux.dev>, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
 osalvador@...e.de
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wangfushuai@...du.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: Add guard support

On 11/28/25 12:02, Fushuai Wang wrote:
> Introduce guard support to simplify the usage of the
> hugetlb_vma_{lock,unlock}_{read,write}.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fushuai Wang <wangfushuai@...du.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/hugetlb.h | 8 ++++++++
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> index 8e63e46b8e1f..f97cb2f123a3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>   #include <linux/gfp.h>
>   #include <linux/userfaultfd_k.h>
>   #include <linux/nodemask.h>
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
>   
>   struct ctl_table;
>   struct user_struct;
> @@ -468,6 +469,13 @@ static inline void hugetlb_split(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr)
>   
>   #endif /* !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE */
>   
> +DEFINE_GUARD(hugetlb_vma_read, struct vm_area_struct *,
> +	     hugetlb_vma_lock_read(_T), hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(_T))
> +
> +DEFINE_GUARD(hugetlb_vma_write, struct vm_area_struct *,
> +	     hugetlb_vma_lock_write(_T), hugetlb_vma_unlock_write(_T))
> +DEFINE_GUARD_COND(hugetlb_vma_write, _try, hugetlb_vma_trylock_write(_T))

Do I understand correctly that the code you are introducing does not 
have any users?

-- 
Cheers

David