Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934405AbZJNOy1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:54:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934353AbZJNOyZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:54:25 -0400 Received: from smtp2.ultrahosting.com ([74.213.174.253]:52441 "EHLO smtp.ultrahosting.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934299AbZJNOyW (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:54:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:41:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@gentwo.org To: Tejun Heo cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, hpa@zytor.com, cebbert@redhat.com, Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] percpu: make accessors check for percpu pointer in sparse In-Reply-To: <1255500125-3210-17-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> Message-ID: References: <1255500125-3210-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1255500125-3210-17-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1546 Lines: 39 On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Tejun Heo wrote: > #ifndef SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR > /* Weird cast keeps both GCC and sparse happy. */ > -#define SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(__p, __offset) \ > - RELOC_HIDE((typeof(*(__p)) __kernel __force *)(__p), (__offset)) > +#define SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(__p, __offset) ({ \ > + __verify_pcpu_ptr((__p)); \ > + RELOC_HIDE((typeof(*(__p)) __kernel __force *)(__p), (__offset)); \ > +}) If you have the verification in SHIFT_PER_CPU_PTR then why do you need it elsewhere? > #define __pcpu_size_call_return(stem, variable) \ > ({ typeof(variable) pscr_ret__; \ > + __verify_pcpu_ptr(&(variable)); \ > switch(sizeof(variable)) { \ > case 1: pscr_ret__ = stem##1(variable);break; \ > case 2: pscr_ret__ = stem##2(variable);break; \ > @@ -250,6 +251,7 @@ extern void __bad_size_call_parameter(void); > > #define __pcpu_size_call(stem, variable, ...) \ > do { \ > + __verify_pcpu_ptr(&(variable)); \ > switch(sizeof(variable)) { \ > case 1: stem##1(variable, __VA_ARGS__);break; \ > case 2: stem##2(variable, __VA_ARGS__);break; \ Would it not be better to put the verification in the arch code? The percpu_to/from_op may have multiple callsites (at least they have now). If you put it in there then all other stuff is covered. -- 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/