linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of worker

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: <1548855738.2161.5.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 21:42:18 +0800
From:   Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of
 worker_data

On 三, 2019-01-30 at 21:37 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On 三, 2019-01-30 at 10:59 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat 2019-01-19 17:15:23, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This variable is declared as:
> > > 	static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > > In other words, a percpu pointer to struct ...
> > > 
> > > But this variable not used like so but as a pointer to a percpu
> > > struct powerclamp_worker_data.
> > > 
> > > So fix the declaration as:
> > > 	static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu *worker_data;
> > > 
> > > This also quiets Sparse's warnings from __verify_pcpu_ptr(),
> > > like:
> > >   494:49: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different
> > > address
> > > spaces)
> > >   494:49:    expected void const [noderef] <asn:3> *__vpp_verify
> > >   494:49:    got struct powerclamp_worker_data *
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > index 7571f7c2e..c7cba20bd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct powerclamp_worker_data {
> > >  	bool clamping;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > -static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > > +static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;
> > Makes perfect sense. I wonder why I wrote it in the wrong order.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
> > 
> applied and queued for next -rc.
> 
well, just with a minor change to get rid of checkpatch warning.

ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#121: FILE: drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c:104:
+static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;

total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 8 lines checked

thanks,
rui
> thanks,
> rui
> 
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr