[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFydR-Tzp4KAQsZ5-19E8dFO_QoOmAZ3FzGF=Vo+8mJCNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 17:28:59 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpumask: Migrate 'alloc_cpumask_var()' users to 'zalloc_cpumask_var()'
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> Xunlei Pang reported a scheduler bug in init_rootdomain(), which is
> caused by improper use of alloc_cpumask_var(), which results in
> uninitialized cpumasks being allocated.
>
> No-one noticed this scheduler bug for a long time, probably because
> alloc_cpumask_var() does result in initialized cpumasks in the
> !CPUMASK_OFFSTACK case - which is the vast majority of systems
> out there.
>
> So migrate all alloc_cpumask_var() users over to zalloc_cpumask_var(),
> to be on the safe side.
Ugh. I'd rather just see us say that "allocating a cpumask always
returns a zeroed mask".
There really is no reason to ever not zero it (they aren't _that_ big
even on huge machines), so I'd rather just get rid of the "zalloc"
version that is the less common one anyway.
Linus
--
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