linux-kernel - Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

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]

Message-ID: <20160317115704.GD28772@pd.tnic>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:57:04 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Xiong Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@...e.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not
> > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.
> 
> So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one
> just muddles the water.
> 
> Therefore I'd call the code just plain broken.

I'll say.

Can't the code simply do:

	if (!cpu_possible(i))
		continue;

?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.