Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: move folio_set_compound_order() to mm/internal.h

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/16/22 2:56 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 12/16/22 14:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:20:53 -0800 Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

folio_set_compound_order() is moved to an mm-internal location so external
folio users cannot misuse this function. Change the name of the function
to folio_set_order() and use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than BUG_ON. Also,
handle the case if a non-large folio is passed and add clarifying comments
to the function.


This differs from the version I previously merged:

--- a/mm/internal.h~mm-move-folio_set_compound_order-to-mm-internalh-update
+++ a/mm/internal.h
@@ -384,8 +384,10 @@ int split_free_page(struct page *free_pa
   */
  static inline void folio_set_order(struct folio *folio, unsigned int order)
  {
-    if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_large(folio)))
+    if (!folio_test_large(folio)) {
+        WARN_ON_ONCE(order);
          return;
+    }

I think that's out of date?

We eventually settled on the version that is (as of this a few minutes
ago) already in mm-unstable (commit fdea060a130d: "mm: move
folio_set_compound_order() to mm/internal.h"), which has it like this:

Hi Andrew, yes this version that is already in mm-unstable represents the v2 of this patch which is what we agreed on. I think the patch mm-move-folio_set_compound_order-to-mm-internalh-update with description "alter the folio_set_order() warning" which was just added to mm-unstable should be removed as our discussion lead us away from that version.


        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_large(folio)))
                return;

      folio->_folio_order = order;
  #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT

Makes sense.  But wouldn't

    if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order && !folio_test_large(folio)))

be clearer?
That's a little narrower of a check. But maybe that's desirable. Could

Ya I think it would helpful to have a wider catch for the warn as any user calling folio_set_order() with a non-large folio should be aware as they could misuse the folio later on even if they passed in a 0 order because order itself would be an OOB access.

Thanks,
Sidhartha Kumar
someone (Mike, Muchun, Sidhartha) comment on which behavior is
preferable, please? I think I'm a little dizzy at this point. :)


thanks,





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux