Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:45:06 +0000 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drivers/base: cacheinfo: validate device node for all the caches |
| |
On 23/02/15 15:14, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:10:16PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On architectures that depend on DT for obtaining cache hierarcy, we need >> to validate the device node for all the cache indices, failing to do so >> might result in wrong information being exposed to the userspace. >> >> This is quite possible on initial/incomplete versions of the device >> trees. In such cases, it's better to bail out if all the required device >> nodes are not present. >> >> This patch adds checks for the validation of device node for all the >> caches and doesn't initialise the cacheinfo if there's any error. >> >> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> >> Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >> --- >> drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 12 ++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c >> index 6e64563361f0..7015bf05c828 100644 >> --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c >> +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
[...]
>> @@ -189,8 +195,10 @@ static int detect_cache_attributes(unsigned int cpu) >> * will be set up here only if they are not populated already >> */ >> ret = cache_shared_cpu_map_setup(cpu); >> - if (ret) >> + if (ret) { >> + pr_err("failed to setup cache hierarcy from DT\n"); > > It would probably be better if this were something like: > > pr_warn("Unable to detect cache hierarcy from DT for CPU %d\n", > cpu); >
Agreed, will update and send v2.
> Otherwise, this looks sane to me, and it would be nice to have this in > ASAP so as to avoid exposing erroneous information to userspace. So: > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> >
Thanks.
Regards, Sudeep
| |