linux-kernel - [PATCH] of: fdt: modify small size memory 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20240304223831.11288-1-skseofh@gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  5 Mar 2024 07:38:30 +0900
From: skseofh@...il.com
To: robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	frowand.list@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	skseofh@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH] of: fdt: modify small size memory check


> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> From: Daero Lee <skseofh@...il.com>
> > >>
> > >> After page aligning, the size may become zero. So I added exception
> > >> handling code for size 0.
> > >
> > >That may be true, but when would anyone only have memory regions of
> > >less than 2 pages. In any case memblock_add will just do nothing. What
> > >is the actual problem you are having?
> > >
> > >Rob
> >
> > Ignore the previous mail.
> > I modified the patch to clear this size check routine. Please check
>
> You still haven't answered my questions above.
> 
> Though the patch below is a bit more readable than what we currently have...

Well.. I don't see any 'real' problem with this.
But I'm not sure if it's appropriate to leave a part that will be returned 
directly in the next fuction called. Wouldn't it be better to handle the part
can be handled in this function, rather than expecting the next function to 
handle this exception?