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]

Message-ID: <182631957a7.c72ff42439506.3030495024426988155@siddh.me>
Date:   Wed, 03 Aug 2022 15:16:21 +0530
From:   Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me>
To:     "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>
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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 15:12:11 +0530  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> Oh. So I was daft, as suspected. ;-)
> 
> And I can confirm that while gcc-11 doesn't trigger the warning, gcc-12 
> does:
> 
>   $ make ARCH=x86_64 CC=gcc-11 arch/x86/mm/numa.o
>     CC      arch/x86/mm/numa.o
>   $
> 
>   $ rm -f arch/x86/mm/numa.o
>   $
>   $ make ARCH=x86_64 CC=gcc-12 arch/x86/mm/numa.o
> 
>     CC      arch/x86/mm/numa.o
>   arch/x86/mm/numa.c: In function ‘cpumask_of_node’:
>   arch/x86/mm/numa.c:916:39: error: the comparison will always evaluate as ‘false’ for the address of ‘node_to_cpumask_map’ will never be NULL [-Werror=address]
>     916 |         if (node_to_cpumask_map[node] == NULL) {
> 
> 
> > [...]
> 
> Yeah - and I agree with your fix - will apply it.
> 
> Thanks for your patience :-)
> 
>     Ingo
> 

No worries, and thanks! :)
Siddh