| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:22:57 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> cc: Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@...aro.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] percpu: use ZERO_SIZE_PTR / ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:15:58AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Percpu pointers are in a different address space and using > > ZERO_SIZE_PTR directly will trigger sparse address space warning. > > Also, I'm not entirely sure whether 16 is guaranteed to be unused in > > percpu address space (maybe it is but I don't think we have anything > > enforcing that). > > Another thing is that percpu address dereferencing always goes through > rather unintuitive translation and 1. we can't (or rather currently > don't) guarantee that fault will occur for any address 2. even if it > does, the faulting address wouldn't be anything easily > distinguishible. So, unless the above shortcomings is resolved, I > don't really see much point of using ZERO_SIZE_PTR for percpu > allocator. The same is true for the use of NULL pointers. -- 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