linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible

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]

Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:01:05 -0300
From:   Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Pingfan Liu <piliu@...hat.com>, Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Kexec-ml <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
        Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible


Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com> writes:

> On 15/07/20 9:20 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> 
>> Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>>> @@ -534,7 +537,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc(unsigned long node,
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES
>>>  	if (depth == 1 &&
>>>  	    strcmp(uname, "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory") == 0) {
>>> -		walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, early_init_drmem_lmb);
>>> +		walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, NULL, early_init_drmem_lmb);
>> 
>> walk_drmem_lmbs_early() can now fail. Should this failure be propagated
>> as a return value of early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc()?
>   
>> 
>>>  		return 0;
>>>  	}
>>>  #endif
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> @@ -787,7 +790,7 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void)
>>>  	 */
>>>  	memory = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory");
>>>  	if (memory) {
>>> -		walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
>>> +		walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, NULL, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
>> 
>> Similarly here. Now that this call can fail, should
>> parse_numa_properties() handle or propagate the failure?
>
> They would still not fail unless the callbacks early_init_drmem_lmb() & numa_setup_drmem_lmb()
> are updated to have failure scenarios. Also, these call sites always ignored failure scenarios
> even before walk_drmem_lmbs() was introduced. So, I prefer to keep them the way they are?

Ok, makes sense. In this case:

Reviewed-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>

-- 
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center