linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] x86/numa_emulation: fix potential memory leak

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:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 20:10:49 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc:     kirill@...temov.name, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, tj@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] x86/numa_emulation: fix potential memory leak

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:11:27AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> It means numa emulation is not properly configured.

Or what the error message says: it cannot determine the default physical
node because NUMA emulation is not properly configured. What I'm trying
to say, is, explain the *why* in the commit message, not the *what*. The
*what* one can see in the code.

> Well, to this particular piece, have a for loop within a function doesn't look
> like a big deal to me. So you prefer to take every for loop in this function
> out?

As I said, I'd prefer you take this loop out and turn it into a separate
function in one go, along with fixing the potential memory leak.

> Last but not the least, these are two issues:
> 
> The problem this patch wants to address is the memory leak, while the concern
> here you mentioned is the coding style.

Let's not get too pedantic here: if you carve it out in a separate
function, it is still clear what the patch is doing.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.