linux-kernel - Re: [oliver.sang@...el.com: [cpumask] b9a7ecc71f: WARNING:at_include/linux/cpumask.h:#__is_kernel_percpu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiK5wyj58x3uvt+otsO9=79N13OO6Nf57DFVYO=QX==ig@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 1 Oct 2022 09:20:53 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     lkp@...ts.01.org, lkp@...el.com,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [oliver.sang@...el.com: [cpumask] b9a7ecc71f: WARNING:at_include/linux/cpumask.h:#__is_kernel_percpu_address]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 6:51 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The commit  b9a7ecc71fe582e ("cpumask: fix checking valid cpu range")
> fixes broken cpumask_check(), which for now doesn't warn user when it
> should. After the fix, I observed many false-positive warnings which
> were addressed in the following patches.

Are all the false positives fixed?

I suspect that to avoid any automation noise, you should just rebase
so that the fixes come first. Otherwise we'll end up wasting a lot of
time on the noise.

This is not that different from introducing new buil;d-time warnings:
the things they point out need to be fixed before the warning can be
integrated, or it causes bisection problems.

                  Linus