Message-ID: <1362175844.3221.7.camel@thor.lan>
Subject: Re: WARNING: at lib/idr.c:678 idr_find_slowpath+0x97/0xc0()
From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, markus@trippelsdorf.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:10:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAOS58YOg20+i3beJsHJjedJ2sOrRfAakc=Pj84bZF0BatEU9HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130228090846.GA249@x4>
	 <20130301133159.0711f81a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	 <20130301213511.GF2481@mtj.dyndns.org> <1362174860.3221.2.camel@thor.lan>
	 <CAOS58YOg20+i3beJsHJjedJ2sOrRfAakc=Pj84bZF0BatEU9HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1110
Lines: 26

On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 13:56 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> wrote:
> >> The WARN_ON() is just for cases where someone might be doing something
> >> crazy with the previous behavior of ignoring high bit.  Maybe I was
> >> being overly paranoid and we should just drop it from idr_find().
> >
> > Can we revert the __lock_timer patch as well then?
> 
> I don't know.  Andrew was worried about the type of timer id.  For
> inotify, it's okay as the type is always int but it's not a bad idea
> to have some form of sanitizing if the type might deviate.

It's the other way around that would be the problem, if idr returned a
type that wasn't representable by timer_t.

IMO, idr should be the sanitizing; either the value is valid and found
or not. But that's just my opinion :)

Regards,
Peter Hurley

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/