MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1640036051.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <73a0b47ec72a9c29e0efc18a9941237b3b3ad736.1640036051.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <YcHFKSNDI8KJKR7y@elver.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YcHFKSNDI8KJKR7y@elver.google.com>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Dec 2021 13:19:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CANpmjNPDsr36JQ4y_nkBVgaEXp+oqxuG3th8Ftr5rXMNX7V6JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm v4 28/39] kasan, page_alloc: allow skipping unpoisoning
 for HW_TAGS
To:     andrey.konovalov@linux.dev
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 13:14, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:02PM +0100, andrey.konovalov@linux.dev wrote:
> [...]
> > +static inline bool should_skip_kasan_unpoison(gfp_t flags, bool init_tags)
> > +{
> > +     /* Don't skip if a software KASAN mode is enabled. */
> > +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC) ||
> > +         IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS))
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     /* Skip, if hardware tag-based KASAN is not enabled. */
> > +     if (!kasan_hw_tags_enabled())
> > +             return true;
>
> Same question here: why is IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_{GENERIC,SW_TAGS})
> check required if kasan_hw_tags_enabled() is always false if one of
> those is configured?

Hmm, I pattern-matched too quickly. In this case there's probably no
way around it because the return value is different, so not exactly
like the should_skip_init().