linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/6] omap: iommu: generic iommu api migration

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, 7 Jun 2011 15:27:55 +0300
From:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Hiroshi.DOYU@...ia.com, arnd@...db.de, davidb@...eaurora.org,
	Joerg.Roedel@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] omap: iommu: generic iommu api migration

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> My point is that if the allocator guarantees the alignment (not as a side
> effect of the implementation, but per its API) there's no need to check it
> again. As the alignement is required, we need an allocator that guarantees it
> anyway.

I understand, but I'd still prefer to have an explicit check that the
hardware alignment requirement is met.

There's no cost in doing that (it's a cold path), and even if it would
only fail once and with an extremely broken kernel - it's worth it.
Will save huge amount of debugging pain (think of the poor guy that
will have to debug this...).

Thanks,
Ohad.
--
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/