linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling (take 4)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b9df5fa10808121012p4e4ddd15pda1704d4a9ab483a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:12:29 +0600
From:	"Rakib Mullick" <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To:	"Max Krasnyansky" <maxk@...lcomm.com>, "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling (take 4)

On 8/12/08, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
>  Paul Jackson wrote:
>  > Rakib wrote:
>  >> Ok, this is the second place. But, what about the first place ( I
>  >> mean in line 614).
>  >
>  > You present me with a clear choice.
>  >
>  >     I could find your past patch, applying it to whatever it applied to,
>  >     and look to see what was at line 614.
>  >
>  >     Or I could ask you to restate your point, with enough code
>  >     displayed so that I could understand your point just by reading
>  >     your email.
>  >
>  > I choose the second choice.  Thank-you.
>
>
> I think Rakib is talking about this code
 Yes, Max you are right . I'm talking about the following code.
>
>
>  >         /* Special case for the 99% of systems with one, full, sched domain */
>  >         if (is_sched_load_balance(&top_cpuset)) {
>
> >                 doms = kmalloc(sizeof(cpumask_t), GFP_KERNEL);
>  >                 if (!doms)
>
> >                         goto done;
>
> >
>  >                 dattr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct sched_domain_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
>  >                 if (dattr) {
>  >                         *dattr = SD_ATTR_INIT;
>  >                         update_domain_attr_tree(dattr, &top_cpuset);
>  >                 }
 Don't you think , the memory allocation here needs to be checked ?
>  >                 *doms = top_cpuset.cpus_allowed;
>  >
>
> >                 ndoms = 1;
>  >                 goto done;
>  >         }
>
>  Which I think is perfectly fine and clear.
>
>  There are only two matches for
>         /attr.*=.*alloc
>  We covered both of them.
>
>
>  Max
>
>
>
>
--
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/