linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/numa: Use cpumask_available instead of hardcoded NULL check

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:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 11:08:19 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me>
Cc:     x86 <x86@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees 
        <linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/numa: Use cpumask_available instead of hardcoded
 NULL check


* Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me> wrote:

> > Does 'allmodconfig' reproduce the warning for you:
> > 
> >   $ make allmodconfig
> >   $ make arch/x86/mm/numa.o
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > If yes, then this could be due to gcc-12, as it doesn't reproduce with 
> > gcc-11 for me:
> > 
> >    gcc version 11.2.0 (Ubuntu 11.2.0-19ubuntu1) 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> >     Ingo
> > 
> 
> There is no reason why allmodconfig would trigger the warning, [...]

Well, unless I'm misreading your changelog, all the warning needs to 
trigger is CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y.

> as it has CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y, but the warning is because of the 
> other case.

What 'other case'? I've re-read the discussion and don't see it, but maybe 
I'm a bit daft this morning ...

> Did you try the config file I had linked to earlier?

Yes, and it didn't trigger the warning.

Thanks,

	Ingo