linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pm: fix false positive kmemleak report in msr_build

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:08:01 +0200
From:   Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/pm: fix false positive kmemleak report in
 msr_build_context()

Hi Borislav, Rafael,

Thank you for your reviews!

On 26/04/2022 19:27, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 06:24:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> So can the comment be dropped entirely?
> 
> Looks like it to me. All the accesses in wakeup_64.S are done through
> those offsets which are computed at build-time so they should always be
> valid.
> 
> OTOH, I wouldn't mind having there some text making any future person
> touching this, aware of where to look when making changes.
> 
> Some changes like removing a struct member are nicely caught, ofc,
> see below. But for something else which is a lot more subtle having a
> comment say "hey, have a look at where this is used in wakeup_64.S and
> make sure everything is still kosher" is better than having no comment
> at all. IMHO.
Good point, let me update the comment and the commit message in a new v3.

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net