Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] prmem: test cases for memory protection
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     igor.stoppa@huawei.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20181023213504.28905-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
 <20181023213504.28905-7-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
 <0175ca6a-40d1-0fde-350c-891488432ecb@intel.com>
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ef1168c-0c44-274a-5942-257b84609051@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:16:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0175ca6a-40d1-0fde-350c-891488432ecb@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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