linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V9] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework

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:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:14:11 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        "open list:POWER MANAGEMENT CORE" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle
 injection framework

On 25-06-18, 10:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> > +void idle_injection_get_duration(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev,
> > +                                unsigned int *run_duration_ms,
> > +                                unsigned int *idle_duration_ms)
> > +{
> > +       *run_duration_ms = READ_ONCE(ii_dev->run_duration_ms);
> > +       *idle_duration_ms = READ_ONCE(ii_dev->idle_duration_ms);
> 
> Should you check the arguments against NULL before attempting to
> dereference them?  If not, then why not?

I would vote with a NO. This is a mandatory parameter and not filling it in with
a valid pointer is a BUG really. I don't see a reason why we should prevent the
kernel from crashing if such a mistake happens :)

-- 
viresh