linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [2/2] x86_64: increase PHB1 split transaction timeout

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061022015319.GH5211@rhun.haifa.ibm.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:53:19 +0200
From:	Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, patches@...-64.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2/2] x86_64: increase PHB1 split transaction timeout

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 04:13:28PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:

> > +static void __init calgary_increase_split_completion_timeout(void __iomem *bbar,
> > +	unsigned char busnum)
> > +{
> > +	u64 val64;
> > +	void __iomem *target;
> > +	unsigned long phb_shift = -1;
> 
> The initialization of this to -1 is unclear to me since we fall through to 
> BUG_ON() if busno_to_phbid() returns anything under than 0-3.  A shift 
> value of MAX_ULONG is never appropriate.

Without the initialization gcc warns about 'phb_shift' potentially
being used unitialized. I used '-1' exactly because it is never
appropriate.

Cheers,
Muli
-
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/