[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1ef1168c-0c44-274a-5942-257b84609051@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:16:14 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Mimi Zohar
<zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Cc: igor.stoppa@...wei.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] prmem: test cases for memory protection
On 25/10/2018 17:43, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> +static bool is_address_protected(void *p)
>> +{
>> + struct page *page;
>> + struct vmap_area *area;
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(!is_vmalloc_addr(p)))
>> + return false;
>> + page = vmalloc_to_page(p);
>> + if (unlikely(!page))
>> + return false;
>> + wmb(); /* Flush changes to the page table - is it needed? */
>
> No.
ok
> The rest of this is just pretty verbose and seems to have been very
> heavily copied and pasted. I guess that's OK for test code, though.
I was tempted to play with macros, as templates to generate tests on the
fly, according to the type being passed.
But I was afraid it might generate an even stronger rejection than the
rest of the patchset already has.
Would it be acceptable/preferable?
--
igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
