linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]gx-suspmod.c use boot_cpu_data instead of current_cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:40:45 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	cpufreq@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH]gx-suspmod.c use boot_cpu_data instead of
 current_cpu_data

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:19:05 +0000 Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> in preemptible kernel will report BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible, so use boot_cpu_data instead of current_cpu_data.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> 
> 
> ---
> arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/gx-suspmod.c |    4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -pur linux/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/gx-suspmod.c linux.new/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/gx-suspmod.c
> --- linux/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/gx-suspmod.c	2007-07-25 14:11:06.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux.new/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/gx-suspmod.c	2007-07-25 13:57:29.000000000 +0000
> @@ -181,8 +181,8 @@ static __init struct pci_dev *gx_detect_
>  	struct pci_dev *gx_pci = NULL;
>  
>  	/* check if CPU is a MediaGX or a Geode. */
> -	if ((current_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_NSC) &&
> -	    (current_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_CYRIX)) {
> +	if ((boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_NSC) &&
> +	    (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_CYRIX)) {
>  		dprintk("error: no MediaGX/Geode processor found!\n");
>  		return NULL;
>  	}

um, I suspect it really wants to get at the current CPU.  But putting a
preempt_disable() around just that code is meaningless: the current CPU
could change immediately before or after the code block. It needs deeper
fixing, methinks.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/