[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901050906180.12774@quilx.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:10:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: __nr_to_section - make it safe against overflow
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> /*
> * This is, logically, a pointer to an array of struct
> @@ -980,9 +986,12 @@ extern struct mem_section mem_section[NR
>
> static inline struct mem_section *__nr_to_section(unsigned long nr)
> {
> - if (!mem_section[SECTION_NR_TO_ROOT(nr)])
> + unsigned long idx = SECTION_NR_TO_ROOT(nr);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(idx >= NR_SECTION_ROOTS);
> +
> + if (idx >=NR_SECTION_ROOTS || !mem_section[idx])
> return NULL;
> - return &mem_section[SECTION_NR_TO_ROOT(nr)][nr & SECTION_ROOT_MASK];
> + return &mem_section[idx][nr & SECTION_ROOT_MASK];
> }
> extern int __section_nr(struct mem_section* ms);
> extern unsigned long usemap_size(void);
Not that you are adding code to numerous hot code path. Plus this is a
frequently used inline. Code size is going to increase if you do this.
I would think that the code does not have the tests because of performance
and code size concerns. Can we just say that a sane nr must be passed to
__nr_section?
--
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