linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] arm64/numa: add nid check for memory block

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:   Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:39:29 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
        Tianhong Ding <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] arm64/numa: add nid check for memory block

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:42PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> Use the same tactic to cpu and numa-distance nodes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/of/of_numa.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

The subject has arm64/numa, but this is clearly core OF code and
requires an ack from Rob.

The commit message also doesn't make much sense to me.

> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> index 7b3fbdc..afaeb9c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
>  			 */
>  			continue;
> 
> +		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
> +			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}

Do you really want to return from the function here? Shouldn't we at least
of_node_put(np), i.e. by using a break; ?

Will