[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120130175434.GG3355@google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:54:34 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
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
Hello, Christoph.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:52:23AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> We have two possibilities now:
>
> 1. We say that the value returned from the per cpu allocator is an opaque
> value.
>
> This means that we have to remove the NULL check from the free
> function. And audit the kernel code for all occurrences where
> a per cpu pointer value of NULL is assumed to mean that no per
> cpu allocation has occurred.
No, NULL is never gonna be a valid return from any allocator including
percpu. Percpu allocator doesn't and will never do so.
> 2. We say that there are special values for the per cpu pointers (NULL,
> ZERO_SIZE_PTR)
>
> Then we would have to guarantee that the per cpu allocator never
> returns those values.
>
> Plus then the ZERO_SIZE_PTR patch will be fine.
>
> The danger exist of these values being passed as
> parameters to functions that do not support them (per_cpu_ptr
> etc). Those would need VM_BUG_ONs or some other checks to detect
> potential problems.
I'm saying we don't have this for ZERO_SIZE_PTR in any meaningful way
at this point. If somebody wants to implement it properly, please
feel free to, but simply applying ZERO_SIZE_PTR without other changes
doesn't make any sense.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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