linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] x86: UV uv

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:	Tue, 24 May 2011 17:19:10 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86: UV uv_tlb.c cleanup

Well, so you have changed this current sequence in uv_init_per_cpu():

>	...
>		return 1;

>  	kfree(uvhub_descs);
>  	kfree(uvhub_mask);
>       [ ...]
>  	return 0;

to:

> +       if (summarize_uvhub_sockets(nuvhubs, uvhub_descs, uvhub_mask))
> +               goto fail;

>  	kfree(uvhub_descs);
>  	kfree(uvhub_mask);
>       [ ...]
> +	init_per_cpu_tunables();
>  	return 0;
> +
> +fail:
> +	kfree(uvhub_descs);
> +	kfree(uvhub_mask);
> +	return 1;

Don't the kfree()s get changed - i.e. the patch has a side-effect?

And yes, while this might be a kmem leak fix, it is a fix and a *SIDE EFFECT* 
which i explicitly asked to be queued in a separate patch(es) from the large 
cleanup patch ...

The cleanup patch should be a cleanup of existing code - even if that code has 
bugs. Nothing more. Bug fixes are for different patches.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/