[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190911120217.GR4023@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:02:17 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...nel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: ensure a device has valid node id in
device_add()
On Wed 11-09-19 19:41:44, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2019/9/11 19:03, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > On 2019/9/11 15:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 11-09-19 15:22:30, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> It seems that there is no protection that prevent setting the node
> >>> of device to an invalid node.
> >>> And the kernel does have a few different check now:
> >>> 1) some does " < 0" check;
> >>> 2) some does "== NUMA_NO_NODE" check;
> >>> 3) some does ">= MAX_NUMNODES" check;
> >>> 4) some does "< 0 || >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(node)" check.
> >>>
> >>> We need to be consistent about the checking, right?
> >>
> >> You can try and chase each of them and see what to do with them. I
> >> suspect they are a result of random attempts to fortify the code in many
> >> cases. Consistency is certainly good but spreading more checks all over
> >> the place just adds more cargo cult. Each check should be reasonably
> >> justified.
> >
> > Ok, Let me focus on making the node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware
> > by only checking "node == NUMA_NO_NODE" first.
>
> Hi, Michal
> It that ok for me to add your name to "Suggested-by" tag, since I am
> going to quote some of your words on the commit log.
Sure, no problem. Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists