lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:26:10 +1000 From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> To: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com> Cc: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>, "Srivatsa Vaddagiri" <vatsa@...ibm.com>, "Mike Travis" <travis@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Gautham R Shenoy" <ego@...ibm.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>, "Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: v2.6.26-rc7: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference On Monday 23 June 2008 02:29:07 Vegard Nossum wrote: > And the (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) fails because the CPU has just been > offlined (or failed to initialize, but it's the same thing), while > NR_CPUS is the value that was compiled in as CONFIG_NR_CPUS (so the > former check will always be true). > > I don't think it is valid to ask for a per_cpu() variable on a CPU > which does not exist, though Yes it is. As long as cpu_possible(cpu), per_cpu(cpu) is valid. The number check should be removed: checking cpu_possible() is sufficient. Hope that helps, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists