linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/22] dma-debug: move initialization to common code

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, 24 Apr 2018 09:35:24 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
        linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        nios2-dev@...ts.rocketboards.org,
        linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/22] dma-debug: move initialization to common code

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:23:43AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> -void dma_debug_init(u32 num_entries)
>> +static int dma_debug_init(void)
>>   {
>> +	u32 num_entries;
>
> Maybe initialise it to PREALLOC_DMA_DEBUG_ENTRIES?

We initialize it down in an if/else clause which seems a little more clear
to me, at the cost of two extra lines of code.  But I suspect I should
just go a little further and merge the global req_entries and the local
num_entries into a single variable with a better name.

>> +core_initcall(dma_debug_init);
>
> I think it's worth noting that for most users this now happens much earlier 
> than before. In general that's probably good (e.g. on arm64 it should 
> prevent false-positives from the Arm SMMU drivers under ACPI), and I can't 
> imagine it's high-risk, but it is a behaviour change.

I'll mention this in the changelog, thanks!