netdev - Re: [linux-pm] [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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1278432768.2854.92.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date:	Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:12:48 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, markgross@...gnar.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 3/3] pm_qos: get rid of the allocation in
 pm_qos_add_request()

On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 23:07 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 05, 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 08:41 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > sorry for the late reply, as I've been on vacation in the last week
> > > (and shut off mails intentionally :)
> > 
> > Envy forbids me from saying that's OK.
> > 
> > > 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?
> > 
> > Yes, it should be a negative check ... I'll update the patch.
> 
> I've already fixed it in my tree.

Ah, OK, thanks ... so that would explain why we haven't been getting
floods of reports (instead of me thinking no-one has tested it).

> > I guess this still means that no-one has managed to test it on a functional
> > system ...
> 
> Well, it's been for a while in linux-next ...

So here's hoping ...

James


--
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