linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: folio_zero_user: open code range computation in folio_zero

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20260126110550.0df8f68ea232a745c187b2a6@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 11:05:50 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
 david@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
 mingo@...hat.com, mjguzik@...il.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
 tglx@...utronix.de, willy@...radead.org, raghavendra.kt@....com,
 chleroy@...nel.org, ioworker0@...il.com, lizhe.67@...edance.com,
 boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, kernel test robot
 <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: folio_zero_user: open code range computation in
 folio_zero_user()

On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:32:12 -0800 Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com> wrote:

> riscv64-gcc-linux-gnu (v8.5) reports a compile time assert in:
> 
>    r[2] = DEFINE_RANGE(clamp_t(s64, fault_idx - radius, pg.start, pg.end),
>  		       clamp_t(s64, fault_idx + radius, pg.start, pg.end));
> 
> where it decides that pg.start > pg.end in:
>   clamp_t(s64, fault_idx + radius, pg.start, pg.end));
> 
> where pg comes from:
>   const struct range pg = DEFINE_RANGE(0, folio_nr_pages(folio) - 1);
> 
> That does not seem like it could be true. Even for pg.start == pg.end,
> we would need folio_test_large() to evaluate to false at compile time:
> 
>   static inline unsigned long folio_nr_pages(const struct folio *folio)
>   {
> 	if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> 		return 1;
> 	return folio_large_nr_pages(folio);
>   }
> 
> Workaround by open coding the range computation. Also, simplify the type
> declarations for the relevant variables.

Thanks.  It's a shame.

gcc-8.50 is five years old.  Documentation/Changes says we support 8.1.

> I'm not certain about linux-next rebasing protocol, but I'm guessing
> this patch will be squashed in patch-8 ("mm: folio_zero_user: cache
> neighbouring pages").

If the base patch was in mm-unstable then I'd squash.  But it is now in
the allegedly non-rebasing mm-stable so I'll queue this into
mm-unstable->mm-stable as a separate thing, with

Fixes: 93552c9a3350 ("mm: folio_zero_user: cache neighbouring pages")

So there will be a bisection hole for riscv people who use an ancient
compiler, shrug.

>  mm/memory.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

We could of course revert this when we're able to confirm that the
currently-supported gcc versions all handle it OK.