linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/uclamp: Fix overzealous type replacement

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: <20191114202855.64e4jnb4dcbru4w3@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 20:28:57 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        Dietmar.Eggemann@....com, tj@...nel.org,
        patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, surenb@...gle.com, qperret@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/uclamp: Fix overzealous type replacement

On 11/13/19 16:53, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Some uclamp helpers had their return type changed from 'unsigned int' to
> 'enum uclamp_id' by commit
> 
>   0413d7f33e60 ("sched/uclamp: Always use 'enum uclamp_id' for clamp_id values")
> 
> but it happens that some *actually* do return an unsigned int value. Those
> are the helpers that return a utilization value: uclamp_rq_max_value() and
> uclamp_eff_value(). Fix those up.
> 
> Note that this doesn't lead to any obj diff using a relatively recent
> aarch64 compiler (8.3-2019.03). The current code of e.g. uclamp_eff_value()
> already figures out that the return value is 11 bits (bits_per(1024)) and
> doesn't seem to do anything funny. I'm still marking this as fixing the
> above commit to be on the safe side.
> 
> Fixes: 0413d7f33e60 ("sched/uclamp: Always use 'enum uclamp_id' for clamp_id values")
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> ---

The changelog could be a bit simpler and more explicitly say 0413d7f33e60
wrongly changed the return type of some functions. For a second I thought
something weird is going inside these functions.

But that could be just me :-)

Reviewed-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>

Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef