linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] mm: convert __HAVE_ARCH_TLB_REMOVE_TABLE to CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TLB_REMOVE

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: <847afd79-e8f8-4547-8167-0125809de055@gaisler.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 14:33:24 +0100
From: Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@...nel.org>,
 Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@...ux.dev>, richard.weiyang@...il.com, will@...nel.org,
 peterz@...radead.org, aneesh.kumar@...nel.org, npiggin@...il.com,
 dev.jain@....com, ioworker0@...il.com, linmag7@...il.com,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] mm: convert __HAVE_ARCH_TLB_REMOVE_TABLE to
 CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TLB_REMOVE_TABLE config

On 2026-02-06 13:59, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 2/6/26 12:58, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/6/26 7:45 PM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>> On 2/6/26 12:13, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, It's just simply aligned with the MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE above.
>>>
>>> But does that work as expected for !SMP?
>>
>> In the case of !SMP, tlb_remove_table() will not be called:
>>
>> static inline void pgtable_free_tlb(struct mmu_gather *tlb, void *table, bool is_page)
>> {
>>      pgtable_free(table, is_page);
>> }
> 
> Ah, okay. Confusing stuff. Would have been nice to document/mention that in the patch description.
> 
> So if it compiles, all good
> 
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@...nel.org>
> 

It looks a bit weird, but it is actually more logically correct than
before the patch. Before this in the !SMP sparc64 case
__HAVE_ARCH_TLB_REMOVE_TABLE was defined even with no actual
__tlb_remove_table() present. But it did not matter in practice.
But I agree that a mention would not hurt.

Tested both with SMP and !SMP

Tested-by: Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com> #sparc
Acked-by: Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com> #sparc

Cheers,
Andreas