linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2] x86: allocate cpumask during check irq vectors

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:02:32 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] x86: allocate cpumask during check irq vectors


* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:

> Fix warning:
> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c: In function check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable:
> arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:337:1: warning: the frame size of 2052 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes
> 
> when NR_CPUS=8192
> 
> We should use zalloc_cpumask_var() instead.
> 
> -v2: update to GFP_ATOMIC instead and free the allocated cpumask at last.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
> Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/irq.c |   24 +++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> @@ -277,11 +277,18 @@ int check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable(vo
>  	unsigned int this_cpu, vector, this_count, count;
>  	struct irq_desc *desc;
>  	struct irq_data *data;
> -	struct cpumask affinity_new, online_new;
> +	cpumask_var_t affinity_new, online_new;
> +
> +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&affinity_new, GFP_ATOMIC))
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&online_new, GFP_ATOMIC)) {
> +		free_cpumask_var(affinity_new);
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	}

Atomic allocations can fail easily if the system is under duress.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/