linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/ioremap: Use WARN_ONCE instead of printk() + WARN_ON

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: <5DBAD655.8060108@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:40:53 +0800
From:   zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <hpa@...or.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/ioremap: Use WARN_ONCE instead of printk() + WARN_ON_ONCE()

On 2019/10/31 20:00, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-10-31 at 19:36 +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>> On 2019/10/31 19:03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 04:57:18PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>>> WARN_ONCE is more clear and simpler. Just replace it.
> []
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> []
>>>> @@ -172,9 +172,8 @@ static void __ioremap_check_mem(resource_size_t addr, unsigned long size,
>>>>  		return NULL;
>>>>  
>>>>  	if (!phys_addr_valid(phys_addr)) {
>>>> -		printk(KERN_WARNING "ioremap: invalid physical address %llx\n",
>>>> -		       (unsigned long long)phys_addr);
>>>> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>>>> +		WARN_ONCE(1, "ioremap: invalid physical address %llx\n",
>>>> +			  (unsigned long long)phys_addr);
>>> Does
>>> 	WARN_ONCE(!phys_addr_valid(phys_addr),
>>> 		  "ioremap: invalid physical address %llx\n",
>>> 		  (unsigned long long)phys_addr);
>>>
>>> work too?
>>>
>> Thanks, That is better. Will repost.
> Perhaps this is not good patch concept as now each
> invalid physical address will not be emitted.
>
> Before:
> 	each invalid physical address printed
> 	one stack dump
>
> After:
> 	one stck dump with first invalid physical address.
>
Yes,  I  has told that. 

How you think my above patch in the mail.  Thanks
>
> .
>