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:	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:36:57 -0500
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Gavin Shan <shangw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/sparse: don't check return value of alloc_bootmem
 calls

On 12/20/2012 03:23 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
>> index 6b5fb76..ae64d6e 100644
>> --- a/mm/sparse.c
>> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
>> @@ -403,15 +403,13 @@ void __init sparse_mem_maps_populate_node(struct page **map_map,
>>  	size = PAGE_ALIGN(size);
>>  	map = __alloc_bootmem_node_high(NODE_DATA(nodeid), size * map_count,
>>  					 PAGE_SIZE, __pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS));
>> -	if (map) {
>> -		for (pnum = pnum_begin; pnum < pnum_end; pnum++) {
>> -			if (!present_section_nr(pnum))
>> -				continue;
>> -			map_map[pnum] = map;
>> -			map += size;
>> -		}
>> -		return;
>> +	for (pnum = pnum_begin; pnum < pnum_end; pnum++) {
>> +		if (!present_section_nr(pnum))
>> +			continue;
>> +		map_map[pnum] = map;
>> +		map += size;
>>  	}
>> +	return;
>>  
>>  	/* fallback */
>>  	for (pnum = pnum_begin; pnum < pnum_end; pnum++) {
> 
> That's not true when slab_is_available() and why would you possibly add a 
> return statement right before fallback code in such cases?

So what we really need is to update the documentation of __alloc_bootmem_node, I'll send
a patch that does that instead.

I've dragged the 'return' out of the if(map) condition, I should have removed the fallback
as well and so the return would also be gone, but that's irrelevant now.


Thanks,
Sasha
--
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