linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI: Don't check resource_size() in pci_bus_alloc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAE9FiQVVEbHQGV0i_kXVFZFZLFH4sv0OsKLOVnDYDg30S9NrDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:54:57 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI: Don't check resource_size() in pci_bus_alloc_resource()

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>> how about replacing that with:
>>
>>         if (avail.start > avail.end)
>>                   continue;
>>
>> so we do not need to go deep into allocate_resource()
>
> We could, but why bother?  This isn't a performance path, so there's
> no need to add more code to optimize it.  Adding code means there's
> more for human readers to look at and understand, so I prefer not to
> add it unless it's needed.

oh, i did not look further, if the code path could handle strange
constraints properly.
like min > max.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/