- Apr 19, 2020
-
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
- Apr 13, 2020
-
-
Linus Torvalds authored
-
Linus Torvalds authored
This sorts the actual field names too, potentially causing even more chaos and confusion at merge time if you have edited the MAINTAINERS file. But the end result is a more consistent layout, and hopefully it's a one-time pain minimized by doing this just before the -rc1 release. This was entirely scripted: ./scripts/parse-maintainers.pl --input=MAINTAINERS --output=MAINTAINERS --order Requested-by:
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
-
Linus Torvalds authored
They are all supposed to be sorted, but people who add new entries don't always know the alphabet. Plus sometimes the entry names get edited, and people don't then re-order the entry. Let's see how painful this will be for merging purposes (the MAINTAINERS file is often edited in various different trees), but Joe claims there's relatively few patches in -next that touch this, and doing it just before -rc1 is likely the best time. Fingers crossed. This was scripted with /scripts/parse-maintainers.pl --input=MAINTAINERS --output=MAINTAINERS but then I also ended up manually upper-casing a few entry names that stood out when looking at the end result. Requested-by:
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull x86 fixes from Thomas Gleixner: "A set of three patches to fix the fallout of the newly added split lock detection feature. It addressed the case where a KVM guest triggers a split lock #AC and KVM reinjects it into the guest which is not prepared to handle it. Add proper sanity checks which prevent the unconditional injection into the guest and handles the #AC on the host side in the same way as user space detections are handled. Depending on the detection mode it either warns and disables detection for the task or kills the task if the mode is set to fatal" * tag 'x86-urgent-2020-04-12' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: KVM: VMX: Extend VMXs #AC interceptor to handle split lock #AC in guest KVM: x86: Emulate split-lock access as a write in emulator x86/split_lock: Provide handle_guest_split_lock()
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull time(keeping) updates from Thomas Gleixner: - Fix the time_for_children symlink in /proc/$PID/ so it properly reflects that it part of the 'time' namespace - Add the missing userns limit for the allowed number of time namespaces, which was half defined but the actual array member was not added. This went unnoticed as the array has an exessive empty member at the end but introduced a user visible regression as the output was corrupted. - Prevent further silent ucount corruption by adding a BUILD_BUG_ON() to catch half updated data. * tag 'timers-urgent-2020-04-12' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: ucount: Make sure ucounts in /proc/sys/user don't regress again time/namespace: Add max_time_namespaces ucount time/namespace: Fix time_for_children symlink
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull scheduler fixes/updates from Thomas Gleixner: - Deduplicate the average computations in the scheduler core and the fair class code. - Fix a raise between runtime distribution and assignement which can cause exceeding the quota by up to 70%. - Prevent negative results in the imbalanace calculation - Remove a stale warning in the workqueue code which can be triggered since the call site was moved out of preempt disabled code. It's a false positive. - Deduplicate the print macros for procfs - Add the ucmap values to the SCHED_DEBUG procfs output for completness * tag 'sched-urgent-2020-04-12' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: sched/debug: Add task uclamp values to SCHED_DEBUG procfs sched/debug: Factor out printing formats into common macros sched/debug: Remove redundant macro define sched/core: Remove unused rq::last_load_update_tick workqueue: Remove the warning in wq_worker_sleeping() sched/fair: Fix negative imbalance in imbalance calculation sched/fair: Fix race between runtime distribution and assignment sched/fair: Align rq->avg_idle and rq->avg_scan_cost
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull perf fixes from Thomas Gleixner: "Three fixes/updates for perf: - Fix the perf event cgroup tracking which tries to track the cgroup even for disabled events. - Add Ice Lake server support for uncore events - Disable pagefaults when retrieving the physical address in the sampling code" * tag 'perf-urgent-2020-04-12' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: perf/core: Disable page faults when getting phys address perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add Ice Lake server uncore support perf/cgroup: Correct indirection in perf_less_group_idx() perf/core: Fix event cgroup tracking
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull locking fixes from Thomas Gleixner: "Three small fixes/updates for the locking core code: - Plug a task struct reference leak in the percpu rswem implementation. - Document the refcount interaction with PID_MAX_LIMIT - Improve the 'invalid wait context' data dump in lockdep so it contains all information which is required to decode the problem" * tag 'locking-urgent-2020-04-12' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: locking/lockdep: Improve 'invalid wait context' splat locking/refcount: Document interaction with PID_MAX_LIMIT locking/percpu-rwsem: Fix a task_struct refcount
-
git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6Linus Torvalds authored
Pull cifs fixes from Steve French: "Ten cifs/smb fixes: - five RDMA (smbdirect) related fixes - add experimental support for swap over SMB3 mounts - also a fix which improves performance of signed connections" * tag '5.7-rc-smb3-fixes-part2' of git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6: smb3: enable swap on SMB3 mounts smb3: change noisy error message to FYI smb3: smbdirect support can be configured by default cifs: smbd: Do not schedule work to send immediate packet on every receive cifs: smbd: Properly process errors on ib_post_send cifs: Allocate crypto structures on the fly for calculating signatures of incoming packets cifs: smbd: Update receive credits before sending and deal with credits roll back on failure before sending cifs: smbd: Check send queue size before posting a send cifs: smbd: Merge code to track pending packets cifs: ignore cached share root handle closing errors
-
git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/trondmy/linux-nfsLinus Torvalds authored
Pull NFS client bugfix from Trond Myklebust: "Fix an RCU read lock leakage in pnfs_alloc_ds_commits_list()" * tag 'nfs-for-5.7-2' of git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/trondmy/linux-nfs: pNFS: Fix RCU lock leakage
-
- Apr 12, 2020
-
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lftan/nios2Linus Torvalds authored
Pull nios2 updates from Ley Foon Tan: - Remove nios2-dev@lists.rocketboards.org from MAINTAINERS - remove 'resetvalue' property - rename 'altr,gpio-bank-width' -> 'altr,ngpio' - enable the common clk subsystem on Nios2 * tag 'nios2-v5.7-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lftan/nios2: MAINTAINERS: Remove nios2-dev@lists.rocketboards.org arch: nios2: remove 'resetvalue' property arch: nios2: rename 'altr,gpio-bank-width' -> 'altr,ngpio' arch: nios2: Enable the common clk subsystem on Nios2
-
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/dma-mappingLinus Torvalds authored
Pull dma-mapping fixes from Christoph Hellwig: - fix an integer truncation in dma_direct_get_required_mask (Kishon Vijay Abraham) - fix the display of dma mapping types (Grygorii Strashko) * tag 'dma-mapping-5.7-1' of git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/dma-mapping: dma-debug: fix displaying of dma allocation type dma-direct: fix data truncation in dma_direct_get_required_mask()
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/masahiroy/linux-kbuildLinus Torvalds authored
Pull more Kbuild updates from Masahiro Yamada: - raise minimum supported binutils version to 2.23 - remove old CONFIG_AS_* macros that we know binutils >= 2.23 supports - move remaining CONFIG_AS_* tests to Kconfig from Makefile - enable -Wtautological-compare warnings to catch more issues - do not support GCC plugins for GCC <= 4.7 - fix various breakages of 'make xconfig' - include the linker version used for linking the kernel into LINUX_COMPILER, which is used for the banner, and also exposed to /proc/version - link lib-y objects to vmlinux forcibly when CONFIG_MODULES=y, which allows us to remove the lib-ksyms.o workaround, and to solve the last known issue of the LLVM linker - add dummy tools in scripts/dummy-tools/ to enable all compiler tests in Kconfig, which will be useful for distro maintainers - support the single switch, LLVM=1 to use Clang and all LLVM utilities instead of GCC and Binutils. - support LLVM_IAS=1 to enable the integrated assembler, which is still experimental * tag 'kbuild-v5.7-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/masahiroy/linux-kbuild: (36 commits) kbuild: fix comment about missing include guard detection kbuild: support LLVM=1 to switch the default tools to Clang/LLVM kbuild: replace AS=clang with LLVM_IAS=1 kbuild: add dummy toolchains to enable all cc-option etc. in Kconfig kbuild: link lib-y objects to vmlinux forcibly when CONFIG_MODULES=y MIPS: fw: arc: add __weak to prom_meminit and prom_free_prom_memory kbuild: remove -I$(srctree)/tools/include from scripts/Makefile kbuild: do not pass $(KBUILD_CFLAGS) to scripts/mkcompile_h Documentation/llvm: fix the name of llvm-size kbuild: mkcompile_h: Include $LD version in /proc/version kconfig: qconf: Fix a few alignment issues kconfig: qconf: remove some old bogus TODOs kconfig: qconf: fix support for the split view mode kconfig: qconf: fix the content of the main widget kconfig: qconf: Change title for the item window kconfig: qconf: clean deprecated warnings gcc-plugins: drop support for GCC <= 4.7 kbuild: Enable -Wtautological-compare x86: update AS_* macros to binutils >=2.23, supporting ADX and AVX2 crypto: x86 - clean up poly1305-x86_64-cryptogams.S by 'make clean' ...
-
Sedat Dilek authored
I do not longer work for credativ Germany. Please, use my private email address instead. This is for the case when people want to CC me on patches sent from my old business email address. Signed-off-by:
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
-
- Apr 11, 2020
-
-
Trond Myklebust authored
Another brown paper bag moment. pnfs_alloc_ds_commits_list() is leaking the RCU lock. Fixes: a9901899 ("pNFS: Add infrastructure for cleaning up per-layout commit structures") Signed-off-by:
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
-
Xiaoyao Li authored
Two types of #AC can be generated in Intel CPUs: 1. legacy alignment check #AC 2. split lock #AC Reflect #AC back into the guest if the guest has legacy alignment checks enabled or if split lock detection is disabled. If the #AC is not a legacy one and split lock detection is enabled, then invoke handle_guest_split_lock() which will either warn and disable split lock detection for this task or force SIGBUS on it. [ tglx: Switch it to handle_guest_split_lock() and rename the misnamed helper function. ] Suggested-by:
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by:
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Acked-by:
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200410115517.176308876@linutronix.de
-
Xiaoyao Li authored
Emulate split-lock accesses as writes if split lock detection is on to avoid #AC during emulation, which will result in a panic(). This should never occur for a well-behaved guest, but a malicious guest can manipulate the TLB to trigger emulation of a locked instruction[1]. More discussion can be found at [2][3]. [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/8c5b11c9-58df-38e7-a514-dc12d687b198@redhat.com [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200131200134.GD18946@linux.intel.com [3] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200227001117.GX9940@linux.intel.com Suggested-by:
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by:
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Acked-by:
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200410115517.084300242@linutronix.de
-