From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@zoho.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zijun_hu@htc.com, mingo@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] lib/ioremap.c: avoid endless loop under ioremapping page unaligned ranges
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:42:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160923144202.GA31387@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57E20A69.5010206@zoho.com>
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:19:53PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@htc.com>
>
> endless loop maybe happen if either of parameter addr and end is not
> page aligned for kernel API function ioremap_page_range()
>
> in order to fix this issue and alert improper range parameters to user
> WARN_ON() checkup and rounding down range lower boundary are performed
> firstly, loop end condition within ioremap_pte_range() is optimized due
> to lack of relevant macro pte_addr_end()
>
> Signed-off-by: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@htc.com>
Unfortunately, I can't see what the points are in this series of
patches. Most seem to be gratuitous changes which don't address real
issues or improve anything. "I looked at the code and realized that,
if the input were wrong, the function would misbehave" isn't good
enough a reason. What's next? Are we gonna harden all pointer taking
functions too?
For internal functions, we don't by default do input sanitization /
sanity check. There sure are cases where doing so is beneficial but
reading a random function and thinking "oh this combo of parameters
can make it go bonkers" isn't the right approach for it. We end up
with cruft and code changes which nobody needed in the first place and
can easily introduce actual real bugs in the process.
It'd be an a lot more productive use of time and effort for everyone
involved if the work is around actual issues.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-23 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-21 4:19 [PATCH 1/1] lib/ioremap.c: avoid endless loop under ioremapping page unaligned ranges zijun_hu
2016-09-22 12:47 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 15:13 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-23 8:45 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 12:29 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-23 12:42 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 13:00 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-23 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 14:14 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-23 14:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 14:58 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-23 5:53 ` [PATCH v2 " zijun_hu
2016-09-23 14:42 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2016-09-23 15:41 ` [PATCH " zijun_hu
2016-09-23 16:23 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160923144202.GA31387@htj.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=zijun_hu@htc.com \
--cc=zijun_hu@zoho.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).