linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] dma-debug: Refactor dma_debug

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181206184628.GA30345@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 19:46:28 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cai@....us, salil.mehta@...wei.com, john.garry@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] dma-debug: Refactor dma_debug_entry allocation

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 06:10:47PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> AFAICS the tmp list wasn't about locking as much as meaning that if 
> kzalloc() failed at any point, we can free the partial allocation and back 
> out without disturbing free_entries at all - that still makes sense to me 
> up until patch #8 where we embrace the "never free anything" paradigm and 
> rip out the final traces.
>
> That said, maybe I should just drop the refactoring of 
> dma_debug_resize_entries() now that I'm deleting it as part of the same 
> series anyway - then I guess I squash what's left of this patch into #4 and 
> bring forward some of the simplification from #8 to start with. Would that 
> be more agreeable?

Yes, I just noticed all this goes away toward the end anyway.  We can
either keep it as is, or just drop the intermediate step if that is
easy enough for you.