linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Move BUG_ON() inside get_arm64_ftr

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200520114941.GB18302@gaia>
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 12:49:42 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Move BUG_ON() inside
 get_arm64_ftr_reg()

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 06:52:54AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> There is no way to proceed when requested register could not be searched in
> arm64_ftr_reg[]. Requesting for a non present register would be an error as
> well. Hence lets just BUG_ON() when the search fails in get_arm64_ftr_reg()
> rather than checking for return value and doing the same in some individual
> callers.
> 
> But there are some callers that dont BUG_ON() upon search failure. It adds
> an argument 'failsafe' that provides required switch between callers based
> on whether they could proceed or not.
> 
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>

BTW, there should be no empty line between the Cc block and the SoB.

The patch looks fine. Just a note that the patch transforms a current
WARN_ON in a BUG_ON but that's fine by me.

Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>