linux-kernel - Re: set_cpus_allowed

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003261736440.977@ask.diku.dk>
Date:	Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:38:50 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: set_cpus_allowed_ptr

I tried the following semantic patch:

@@
expression E1,E2;
@@

- set_cpus_allowed(E1, cpumask_of_cpu(E2))
+ set_cpus_allowed_ptr(E1, cpumask_of(E2))

@@
expression E;
identifier I;
@@

- set_cpus_allowed(E, I)
+ set_cpus_allowed_ptr(E, &I)

@@
@@

+BAD(
 set_cpus_allowed(...)
+ )

I didn't get any occurrences of BAD in the output, so there seem to be 
only calls to cpumask_of_cpu and identifiers.  Looking at the result of 
grepping for set_cpus_allowed suggested the same.  Am I missing anything?

julia
--
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/