Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1612208222.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <c153f78b173df7537c9be6f2f3a888ddf0b42a3b.1612208222.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <YBl4fY54BN4PaLVG@elver.google.com> <CAAeHK+wnufE=jOAOsG6LTA5Objcj=OyakEDr4zPKVW+Qq+y28g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAeHK+wnufE=jOAOsG6LTA5Objcj=OyakEDr4zPKVW+Qq+y28g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Feb 2021 19:40:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CANpmjNOkBQdvgB-4QNXQMoNFppzVCsCz+ZcuviDL0HX5zJ4kbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] kasan, mm: don't save alloc stacks twice
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@arm.com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 19:01, 'Andrey Konovalov' via kasan-dev
<kasan-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ static inline void kasan_disable_current(void) {}
> > >  struct kasan_cache {
> > >       int alloc_meta_offset;
> > >       int free_meta_offset;
> > > +     bool is_kmalloc;
[...]
> > >       if (kasan_stack_collection_enabled())
> > > -             set_alloc_info(cache, (void *)object, flags);
> > > +             set_alloc_info(cache, (void *)object, flags, kmalloc);
> >
> > It doesn't bother me too much, but: 'bool kmalloc' shadows function
> > 'kmalloc' so this is technically fine, but using 'kmalloc' as the
> > variable name here might be confusing and there is a small chance it
> > might cause problems in a future refactor.
>
> Good point. Does "is_kmalloc" sound good?

Sure, that's also consistent with the new struct field.

Thanks,
-- Marco