linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests/resctrl: Return error if memory is not allocated

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:01:58 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests/resctrl: Return error if memory is not
 allocated

Hi Ilpo,

On 2/14/2023 1:32 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:

>> Missing your Signed-off-by?
> 
> These were intentionally. When I didn't modify the original patch at 
> all during forward porting it, I just kept the original From and SoB as 
> is. But from the doc you pointed me to, I see now x86 wants also handlers 
> sobs.

I do not think this is x86 specific. 
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst states:
"Any further SoBs (Signed-off-by:'s) following the author's SoB are from
people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its
development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took
as it was propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with
the first SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author."


> 
>>> ---
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>>> index 56ccbeae0638..f4880c962ec4 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>>> @@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ static void *malloc_and_init_memory(size_t s)
>>>  	size_t s64;
>>>  
>>>  	void *p = memalign(PAGE_SIZE, s);
>>
>> This may also be a good time to stop using an obsolete call?
> 
> Sure, I can add another patch to change that to posix_memalign().

You can also consider aligned_alloc().

Reinette