linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a plain 'unsigned long'

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:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 08:28:16 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     nsaenz@...nel.org, jim2101024@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
        robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a
 plain 'unsigned long'



On 11/7/2021 5:34 PM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> Hi Christophe!
> 
> [...]
>> This bitmap can be BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_LEGACY_NR or BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_NR long.
> 
> Ahh.  OK.  Given this an option would be to: do nothing (keep current
> status quo); allocate memory dynamically passing the "msi->nr" after it
> has been set accordingly; use BRCM_INT_PCI_MSI_NR and waste a little bit
> of space.
> 
> Perhaps moving to using the DECLARE_BITMAP() would be fine in this case
> too, at least to match style of other drivers more closely.
> 
> Jim, Florian and Lorenzo - is this something that would be OK with you,
> or you would rather keep things as they were?

I would be tempted to leave the code as-is, but if we do we are probably 
bound to seeing patches like Christophe's in the future to address the 
problem, unless we place a coverity specific comment in the source tree, 
which is probably frowned upon.

The addition of the BUILD_BUG_ON() is a good addition though.
-- 
Florian