linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/6] irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1: Avoid explicit cpumask allocation on stack

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: <20240412105839.2896281-3-dawei.li@shingroup.cn>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:58:35 +0800
From: Dawei Li <dawei.li@...ngroup.cn>
To: tglx@...utronix.de,
	yury.norov@...il.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	maz@...nel.org,
	florian.fainelli@...adcom.com,
	chenhuacai@...nel.org,
	jiaxun.yang@...goat.com,
	anup@...infault.org,
	palmer@...belt.com,
	samuel.holland@...ive.com,
	linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dawei Li <dawei.li@...ngroup.cn>
Subject: [PATCH 2/6] irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1: Avoid explicit cpumask allocation on stack

In general it's preferable to avoid placing cpumasks on the stack, as
for large values of NR_CPUS these can consume significant amounts of
stack space and make stack overflows more likely.

Use cpumask_first_and_and() to avoid the need for a temporary cpumask on
the stack.

Signed-off-by: Dawei Li <dawei.li@...ngroup.cn>
---
 drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c | 7 ++-----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c
index eb02d203c963..6df37957b39c 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c
@@ -192,14 +192,11 @@ static int bcm6345_l1_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
 	u32 mask = BIT(d->hwirq % IRQS_PER_WORD);
 	unsigned int old_cpu = cpu_for_irq(intc, d);
 	unsigned int new_cpu;
-	struct cpumask valid;
 	unsigned long flags;
 	bool enabled;
 
-	if (!cpumask_and(&valid, &intc->cpumask, dest))
-		return -EINVAL;
-
-	new_cpu = cpumask_any_and(&valid, cpu_online_mask);
+	new_cpu = cpumask_first_and_and(&intc->cpumask, dest,
+					cpu_online_mask);
 	if (new_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-- 
2.27.0