linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] ACPI: processor: Move checks and availability of acpi

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: <20240417161919.000070b4@Huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:19:19 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra
	<peterz@...radead.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "loongarch@...ts.linux.dev"
	<loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev"
	<kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Russell King
	<linux@...linux.org.uk>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Miguel
 Luis" <miguel.luis@...cle.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, Catalin Marinas
	<catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar
	<mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
	"justin.he@....com" <justin.he@....com>, "jianyong.wu@....com"
	<jianyong.wu@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] ACPI: processor: Move checks and availability
 of acpi_processor earlier


> >   		result = -ENODEV;
> >  @@ -469,15 +483,16 @@ static void acpi_processor_remove(struct
> >  acpi_device *device)
> >   	device_release_driver(pr->dev);
> >   	acpi_unbind_one(pr->dev);
> >  
> >  -	/* Clean up. */
> >  -	per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) = NULL;
> >  -	per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = NULL;
> >  -
> >   	cpu_maps_update_begin();
> >   	cpus_write_lock();
> >  
> >   	/* Remove the CPU. */
> >   	arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
> >  +
> >  +	/* Clean up. */
> >  +	per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) = NULL;
> >  +	per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = NULL;
> >  +  
> 
> 
> Shouldn't above change come after acpi_unmap_cpu() i.e. after next line?
> 
> 
> >   	acpi_unmap_cpu(pr->id);
Agreed - that is more logically correct.  I'll move it for v7.

Thanks,

Jonathan