linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop mem_blk check from unregister_mem_sect_under

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: <82148bc6-672d-6610-757f-d910a17d23c6@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:30:51 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     osalvador@...hadventures.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     mhocko@...e.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, jglisse@...hat.com,
        rafael@...nel.org, yasu.isimatu@...il.com, logang@...tatee.com,
        dave.jiang@...el.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop mem_blk check from
 unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes

On 13.08.2018 17:46, osalvador@...hadventures.net wrote:
> From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
> 
> Before calling to unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(),
> remove_memory_section() already checks if we got a valid
> memory_block.
> 
> No need to check that again in unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
> ---
>  drivers/base/node.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
> index 1ac4c36e13bb..dd3bdab230b2 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> @@ -455,10 +455,6 @@ int unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
>  	NODEMASK_ALLOC(nodemask_t, unlinked_nodes, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	unsigned long pfn, sect_start_pfn, sect_end_pfn;
>  
> -	if (!mem_blk) {
> -		NODEMASK_FREE(unlinked_nodes);
> -		return -EFAULT;
> -	}
>  	if (!unlinked_nodes)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	nodes_clear(*unlinked_nodes);
> 

While it is correct in current code, I wonder if this sanity check
should stay. I would completely agree if it would be a static function.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb