On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 5:34 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:20:20PM +0100, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > This patch adds the core parts of KMSAN runtime and associated files: > > > > - include/linux/kmsan-checks.h: user API to poison/unpoison/check > > the kernel memory; > > - include/linux/kmsan.h: declarations of KMSAN hooks to be referenced > > outside of KMSAN runtime; > > - lib/Kconfig.kmsan: CONFIG_KMSAN and related declarations; > > - Makefile, mm/Makefile, mm/kmsan/Makefile: boilerplate Makefile code; > > - mm/kmsan/annotations.c: non-inlineable implementation of KMSAN_INIT(); > > - mm/kmsan/core.c: core functions that operate with shadow and origin > > memory and perform checks, utility functions; > > - mm/kmsan/hooks.c: KMSAN hooks for kernel subsystems; > > - mm/kmsan/init.c: KMSAN initialization routines; > > - mm/kmsan/instrumentation.c: functions called by KMSAN instrumentation; > > - mm/kmsan/kmsan.h: internal KMSAN declarations; > > - mm/kmsan/shadow.c: routines that encapsulate metadata creation and > > addressing; > > - scripts/Makefile.kmsan: CFLAGS_KMSAN > > - scripts/Makefile.lib: KMSAN_SANITIZE and KMSAN_ENABLE_CHECKS macros > > > That's an odd way to write a changelog, don't you think? Agreed. I'll try to concentrate on the functionality instead. Sorry about that. > You need to describe what you are doing here and why you are doing it. > Not a list of file names, we can see that in the diffstat. > > Also, you don't mention you are doing USB stuff here at all. And why > are you doing it here? That should be added in a later patch. You are right, USB is a good example of a stand-alone feature that can be moved to a separate patch. > Break this up into smaller, logical, pieces that add the infrastructure > and build on it. Don't just chop your patches up on a logical-file > boundry, as you are adding stuff in this patch that you do not need for > many more later on, which means it was not needed here. Just to make sure I don't misunderstand - for example for "kmsan: mm: call KMSAN hooks from SLUB code", would it be better to pull the code in mm/kmsan/core.c implementing kmsan_slab_alloc() and kmsan_slab_free() into that patch? I thought maintainers would prefer to have patches to their code separated from KMSAN code, but if it's not true, I can surely fix that. > thanks, > > greg k-h -- Alexander Potapenko Software Engineer Google Germany GmbH Erika-Mann-Straße, 33 80636 München Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
