netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] pm_qos: get rid of the allocation in pm_qos_add

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: <s5hvd8ubfcz.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:41:00 +0200
From:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	markgross@...gnar.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pm_qos: get rid of the allocation in pm_qos_add_request()

Hi,

sorry for the late reply, as I've been on vacation in the last week
(and shut off mails intentionally :)

At Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:44:48 -0500,
James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> Since every caller has to squirrel away the returned pointer anyway,
> they might as well supply the memory area.  This fixes a bug in a few of
> the call sites where the returned pointer was dereferenced without
> checking it for NULL (which gets returned if the kzalloc failed).
> 
> I'd like to hear how sound and netdev feels about this: it will add
> about two more pointers worth of data to struct netdev and struct
> snd_pcm_substream .. but I think it's worth it.  If you're OK, I'll add
> your acks and send through the pm tree.
> 
> This also looks to me like an android independent clean up (even though
> it renders the request_add atomically callable).  I also added include
> guards to include/linux/pm_qos_params.h

I like the patch very well, too.
But, just wondering...

> @@ -262,6 +260,11 @@ void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req,
>  	if (!pm_qos_req) /*guard against callers passing in null */
>  		return;
>  
> +	if (pm_qos_request_active(pm_qos_req)) {
> +		WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +

Is this correct...?  Shouldn't it be a negative check?


thanks,

Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html