On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:03:27AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Currently (after the revert of 78e5a3399421)
After the revert?
That commit is still in the latest Linus tree.
> with DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS we'll get a warning splat when the cpu is
> outside the range [-1, nr_cpu_ids)
Yah, that range makes sense.
> and cpumask_next() will call find_next_bit() with the input plus one anyway.
> find_next_bit() doesn't explicity document what happens when an input is
> outside the range, but it currently returns the bitmap size without any
> side effects, which means cpumask_next() will return nr_cpu_ids.
That is good to have in the commit message.
> show_cpuinfo() doesn't try to show anything in that case and stops its
> loop, or, IOW, things work fine now with an input of nr_cpu_ids - 1. But,
> show_cpuinfo() is just getting away with a violated cpumask_next()
> contract, which 78e5a3399421 exposed. How about a new commit message like
> this
You're making it sound more complex than it is. All you wanna say is:
"Filter out invalid cpumask_next() inputs by checking its first argument
against nr_cpu_ids because cpumask_next() will call find_next_bit() with
the input plus one but the valid range for n is [-1, nr_cpu_ids)."
But that thing with the revert above needs to be clarified first.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
