linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpumask: relax cpumask_any

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: <aAml8BJ-CKfEiDmf@yury>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 22:46:08 -0400
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpumask: relax cpumask_any_but()

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 02:28:03PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Yury,
> 
> On 4/7/25 8:38 AM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > From: Yury Norov [NVIDIA] <yury.norov@...il.com>
> > 
> > Similarly to other cpumask search functions, accept -1, and consider
> > it as 'any cpu' hint. This helps users to avoid coding special cases.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov [NVIDIA] <yury.norov@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/cpumask.h | 12 ++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > index beff4d26e605..0f816092c891 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > @@ -413,6 +413,7 @@ unsigned int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *src)
> >   * @cpu: the cpu to ignore.
> >   *
> >   * Often used to find any cpu but smp_processor_id() in a mask.
> > + * If @cpu == -1, the function is equivalent to cpumask_any().
> 
> Now that -1 is a legal argument, should the "cpu" parameter be of "int" type (instead of
> "unsigned int")?

Yes, you're right. Need to fix this.