cpumask: relax sanity checking constraints
The cpumask_check() was unnecessarily tight, and causes problems for the users of cpumask_next(). We have a number of users that take the previous return value of one of the bit scanning functions and subtract one to keep it in "range". But since the scanning functions end up returning up to 'small_cpumask_bits' instead of the tighter 'nr_cpumask_bits', the range really needs to be using that widened form. [ This "previous-1" behavior is also the reason we have all those comments about /* -1 is a legal arg here. */ and separate checks for that being ok. So we could have just made "small_cpumask_bits-1" be a similar special "don't check this" value. Tetsuo Handa even suggested a patch that only does that for cpumask_next(), since that seems to be the only actual case that triggers, but that all makes it even _more_ magical and special. So just relax the check ] One example of this kind of pattern being the 'c_start()' function in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c, but also duplicated in various forms on other architectures. Reported-by: syzbot+96cae094d90877641f32@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=96cae094d90877641f32Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c1f4cc16-feea-b83c-82cf-1a1f007b7eb9@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/ Fixes: 596ff4a0 ("cpumask: re-introduce constant-sized cpumask optimizations") Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment