linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] maple_tree: Make mas_prealloc() error checking more generic

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:   Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:22:59 +0000
From:   Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
CC:     "maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org" <maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] maple_tree: Make mas_prealloc() error checking more
 generic

* David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> [220621 05:09]:
> On 15.06.22 19:42, Liam Howlett wrote:
> > Return the error regardless of what it is.  This is a safer option.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/maple_tree.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/maple_tree.c b/lib/maple_tree.c
> > index f413b6f0da2b..89ff5ef7ee28 100644
> > --- a/lib/maple_tree.c
> > +++ b/lib/maple_tree.c
> > @@ -5670,16 +5670,15 @@ void mas_store_prealloc(struct ma_state *mas, void *entry)
> >   */
> >  int mas_preallocate(struct ma_state *mas, void *entry, gfp_t gfp)
> >  {
> > -
> >  	mas_set_alloc_req(mas, 1 + mas_mt_height(mas) * 3);
> >  	mas_alloc_nodes(mas, gfp);
> > -	if (likely(mas->node != MA_ERROR(-ENOMEM)))
> > +	if (likely(!mas_is_err(mas)))
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> >  	mas_set_alloc_req(mas, 0);
> >  	mas_destroy(mas);
> >  	mas->node = MAS_START;
> > -	return -ENOMEM;
> > +	return xa_err(mas->node);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> 
> Liam, (as asked privately before, I was just too busy to respond :) )
> once all known issues are fixed, can we have a new version posted to
> ease review? That would make my life easier to see what needs review and
> in which order patches apply. Thanks!
> 


Yes.  Thanks for asking.

Andrew didn't want to lose the comments so maybe I'll squash the fixes
into a branch and send that out as a response to v9 if that works?

Cheers,
Liam