linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/18] drivers core: Add I/O ASID allocator

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: <20190409103030.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:30:30 +0300
From:   Andriy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>,
        Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] drivers core: Add I/O ASID allocator

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:04:36AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 01:00:49PM +0300, Andriy Shevchenko wrote:
> > I think it makes sense to add a helper macro to rcupdate.h
> > (and we have several cases in kernel that can utilize it)
> > 
> > #define kfree_non_null_rcu(ptr, rcu_head)		\
> > 	do {						\
> > 		if (ptr)				\
> > 			kfree_rcu(ptr, rcu_head);	\
> > 	} while (0)
> > 
> > as a more common pattern for resource deallocators.
> 
> I think that should move straight into kfree_rcu.  

Possible. I didn't dare to offer this due to lack of knowledge how it's used in
other places.

> In general
> we expect *free* to deal with NULL pointers transparently, so we
> should do so here as well.

Exactly my point, thanks.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko