linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: kunit: support offstack cpumask

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: <aLb3T6hjtX4M37dA@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 15:55:27 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: kunit: support offstack cpumask

On Tue 2025-07-08 16:48:47, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025, at 16:24, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2025-07-02 13:28:35, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 11:51:56AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the nice report.
> >
> > The problem is how cpumask_var_t is defined in include/linux/cpumask_types.h:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
> > typedef struct cpumask *cpumask_var_t;
> > #else
> > typedef struct cpumask cpumask_var_t[1];
> > #endif /* CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK */
> >
> > And KUNIT_DEFINE_ACTION_WRAPPER() expect that the 3rd parameter
> > is a pointer.
> >
> > I am going to solve this by adding a wrapper over free_cpumask_var()
> > which would work with a pointer to cpumask_var_t.
> 
> I'm not familiar enough with the cleanup mechanism of kunit,
> but can't you just move the mask allocation outside of
> test_readerwriter()?
> 
> > + */
> > +static void prbtest_free_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t *mask)
> > +{
> > +	free_cpumask_var(*mask);
> > +}
> 
> Or you could pass this as a cpumask_t pointer instead,
> which should do the right thing without the indirection.

It was actually enough to use this in the KUNIT_DEFINE_ACTION_WRAPPER()
definition. It removed the warning about passing an array type.
And I needed neither a wrapper not #ifdef.

I am going to send an updated version of the patch. I am sorry
that it took so long. This patch has fallen though cracks because
of vacation and other urgent tasks.

Best Regards,
Petr