[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y2P68sfCJMvhKmhj@yury-laptop>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 10:31:30 -0700
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC PA SEMI PWRFICIENT"
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86: Fix /proc/cpuinfo cpumask warning
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 09:30:54AM -0700, yury.norov@...il.com wrote:a
> > Callers should pass sane arguments into internal functions if they
> > expect sane output.
>
> What internal function? It's in a global header.
>
> > The API not exported to userspace shouldn't sanity-check all inputs
> > arguments.
>
> That doesn't have anything to do with userspace at all.
>
> APIs exported to the rest of the kernel should very well check their
> inputs. Otherwise they're not APIs - just some random functions which
> are visible to the compiler.
Let's take for example cpu_llc_shared_mask() added by you in
arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h recently:
static inline struct cpumask *cpu_llc_shared_mask(int cpu)
{
return per_cpu(cpu_llc_shared_map, cpu);
}
It's in a global header and available to the rest of the kernel, just as
well. How does it check its input? Maybe I lost something important in
per_cpu() internals, but at the first glance, there's no any protection
against -1, nr_cpu_ids, and other out-of-range arguments.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists