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  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:   Sat, 16 Sep 2017 10:55:53 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:     Fengguang Wu <>, LKP <>,
        LKML <>,
        Don Zickus <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: d57108d4f6 ("watchdog/core: Get rid of the thread .."): BUG:
 unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000208

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
> Don't bother. I found it already. On UP we have:
> #define for_each_cpu(cpu, mask)               \
>         for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < 1; (cpu)++, (void)mask)
> which is a total fail as it breaks any code which uses for_each_cpu() or
> any of the other variants on UP by assuming that all cpumask have bit 0
> set.

It's fairly fundamental. UP assumes that all CPU masks are always that
"one CPU set". Not just here - everywhere.

I guess we could somehow try to move away from that, but really, the
assumption of fixed masks ends up simplifying the code generation a
lot, so it made tons of sense back when UP was a primary target.

So it's an approach that is somewhat historical, but I'm not sure it's
worth re-visiting that old decision. People should simply not expect
to traverse over empty masks in anything that is UP.

So I suspect your perf fix is the right one, and maybe we could/should
just make people more aware of the empty cpumask issue with UP.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists