On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 15:49:08 -0500 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> >> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> >> @@ -2950,7 +2950,7 @@ void mpol_to_str(char *buffer, int maxlen, struct mempolicy *pol)
> >> return;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - p += snprintf(p, maxlen, policy_modes[mode]);
> >> + p += snprintf(p, maxlen, "%s", policy_modes[mode]);
> >>
> >> if (flags & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS) {
> >> p += snprintf(p, buffer + maxlen - p, "=");
> >
> > mutter. There are no '%'s in policy_modes[]. Maybe we should only do
> > this #ifdef CONFIG_KEES.
> >
> > mpol_to_str() would be simpler (and slower) if it was switched to use
> > strncat().
>
> IMHO, you should queue this patch. mpol_to_str() is not fast path at all and
> I don't want worry about false positive warning.
Yup, it's in mainline.
> > It worries me that the CONFIG_NUMA=n version of mpol_to_str() doesn't
> > stick a '\0' into *buffer. Hopefully it never gets called...
>
> Don't worry. It never happens. Currently, all of caller depend on CONFIG_NUMA.
> However it would be nice if CONFIG_NUMA=n version of mpol_to_str() is
> implemented
> more carefully. I don't know who's mistake.
Put a BUG() in there?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>