linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64: remove wrong setting about CONSTANT

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, 26 Feb 2008 08:34:44 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: remove wrong setting about CONSTANT_TSC for
	intel cpu


* Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:

> >   #define set_cpu_cap(c, bit)     set_bit(bit, (unsigned long *)((c)->x86_capability)
> >
> >  which is the same. set_cpu_cap() is indeed the cleaner form to do this
> >  so your patch is correct as a cleanup.
> set_cpu_cap is right
> ==
> set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, &c->x86_capability); ===> is wrong
> should be
> set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability);
> 
> x86_capability is a array ...
> 
> so this could prevent some data corruption.

ah, right you are! The commit was done in a sloppy, incomplete way, 
leaving around lots of direct c->x86_capability references and giving 
room for this bug ...

Btw., there's one other place that has the same bug. I'll fix that up 
too.

	Ingo
--
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/