linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] specific do_timer

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]

Message-ID: <20111201020727.GB30097@sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:07:27 -0600
From:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] specific do_timer_cpu value for nohz off mode

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:16:10PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:11:31 -0800
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:29:59 -0600
> > Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:
> > 
> > > +static ssize_t sysfs_store_do_timer_cpu(struct sys_device *dev,
> > > +						struct sysdev_attribute *attr,
> > > +						const char *buf, size_t size)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct sysdev_ext_attribute *ea = SYSDEV_TO_EXT_ATTR(attr);
> > > +	unsigned int new;
> > > +	int rv;
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> > > +	/* nohz mode not supported */
> > > +	if (tick_nohz_enabled)
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +	rv = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &new);
> > > +	if (rv)
> > > +		return rv;
> > > +
> > > +	if (new >= NR_CPUS || !cpu_online(new))
> > > +		return -ERANGE;
> > > +
> > > +	*(unsigned int *)(ea->var) = new;
> > > +	return size;
> > > +}
> > 
> > checkpatch tells us:
> > 
> > WARNING: usage of NR_CPUS is often wrong - consider using cpu_possible(), num_possible_cpus(), for_each_possible_cpu(), etc
> > 
> > I think the check can just be removed?  Surely cpu_online(1000000000)
> > will return false?
> > 
> 
> And the whole thing is racy, isn't it?  The "new" CPU can go offline a
> nanosecond after we performed that test, so why perform it at all?

See my email concerning the panic in cpu_online().
--
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/