[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190220134353.24456-1-peng.fan@nxp.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:32:55 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: "dennis@...nel.org" <dennis@...nel.org>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"van.freenix@...il.com" <van.freenix@...il.com>,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: [RFC] percpu: use nr_groups as check condition
group_cnt array is defined with NR_CPUS entries, but normally
nr_groups will not reach up to NR_CPUS. So there is no issue
to the current code.
Checking other parts of pcpu_build_alloc_info, use nr_groups as
check condition, so make it consistent to use 'group < nr_groups'
as for loop check. In case we do have nr_groups equals with NR_CPUS,
we could also avoid memory access out of bounds.
Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
---
mm/percpu.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index db86282fd024..c5c750781628 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -2384,7 +2384,7 @@ static struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init pcpu_build_alloc_info(
ai->atom_size = atom_size;
ai->alloc_size = alloc_size;
- for (group = 0, unit = 0; group_cnt[group]; group++) {
+ for (group = 0, unit = 0; group < nr_groups; group++) {
struct pcpu_group_info *gi = &ai->groups[group];
/*
--
2.16.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists