linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Add check for node passed to node_to

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]

Message-ID: <19f34abd0806290434l836e858p47850eb96addd0b3@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:34:43 +0200
From:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	"Mike Travis" <travis@....com>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Add check for node passed to node_to_cpumask V3

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
>> So if CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA=y, I believe we'll see first this warning,
>> then a panic (after all). Would it be better to make cpu_mask_none
>> non-const, in spirit of trying to continue as far as possible? I don't
>> really know if it matters, though. It seems that fedora kernels at
>> least ship with a default of DEBUG_RODATA=y.
>>

...

> Ingo asked me to add the "const".  But it would be a mistake to use
> node_to_cpumask_ptr to modify the map... numa_set/clear_node is the
> proper way to modify the maps.  Hmm, maybe I should add "const" to
> the real node_to_cpumask_ptr function, at least then the compiler
> would help spot illegal usages.

That sounds like a brilliant idea, as long as none of the callers
expect it to be non-const.

I changed it to return const to see, and built allmodconfig + a few
randconfigs without error (well, warning). There are not that many
users of this function anyway.

BTW, what's up with the topology.h/setup_percpu.c mismatch, when
topology.c exists as well?


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/