Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230517150321.2890206-1-revest@chromium.org> <20230517150321.2890206-5-revest@chromium.org>
 <7883b08b-6bdc-a214-96a3-3f5bc1d36da4@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <7883b08b-6bdc-a214-96a3-3f5bc1d36da4@redhat.com>
From:   Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 18:11:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CABRcYmKnEW-OafqYeDp9jkBz3VSQawi_8mz6W-M1L52MR4y8zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: Add a NO_INHERIT flag to the PR_SET_MDWE prctl
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        anshuman.khandual@arm.com, joey.gouly@arm.com, mhocko@suse.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, peterx@redhat.com, izbyshev@ispras.ru,
        broonie@kernel.org, szabolcs.nagy@arm.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        gthelen@google.com, toiwoton@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:01=E2=80=AFAM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.co=
m> wrote:
>
> On 17.05.23 17:03, Florent Revest wrote:
> > +#define MMF_INIT_FLAGS(flags)        ({                               =
       \
> > +     unsigned long new_flags =3D flags;                               =
 \
> > +     if (new_flags & (1UL << MMF_HAS_MDWE_NO_INHERIT))               \
> > +             new_flags &=3D ~((1UL << MMF_HAS_MDWE) |                 =
 \
> > +                             (1UL << MMF_HAS_MDWE_NO_INHERIT));      \
> > +     new_flags & MMF_INIT_MASK;                                      \
> > +})
>
> Why the desire for macros here? :)

I just thought that's what the cool kids do nowadays ?! :)

Eh, I'm joking, I completely agree. Somehow this was suggested to me
in v1 as a macro and I didn't think of questioning that, but a static
inline function should be more readable indeed! I will fix this in v3.

> We have a single user of MMF_INIT_FLAGS, why not inline or use a proper
> inline function?

I have a slight preference for a separate function, so we don't spill
over too much of this logic in fork.c.

Thanks for the review David!