linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc

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: <2f7b725b755350136b0ba8cedd3e342f8234834c.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:18:25 +0500
From:   Muhammad Usama Anjum <musamaanjum@...il.com>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in
 alloc_workqueue call

On Thu, 2021-03-18 at 15:16 +0000, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Missing argument to printf")
> Fixes: 08ad7f822739 ("loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/block/loop.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index f2f9e4127847..ee2a6c1bc093 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -1192,7 +1192,7 @@ static int loop_configure(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode,
>  	lo->workqueue = alloc_workqueue("loop%d",
>  					WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_FREEZABLE |
>  					WQ_MEM_RECLAIM,
> -					lo->lo_number);
> +					1, lo->lo_number);
>  	if (!lo->workqueue) {
>  		error = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto out_unlock;

Nice catch.

Reviewed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <musamaanjum@...il.com>