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 08:39:10 +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


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> > 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! [...]

actually, not: &c->x86_capability and c->x86_capability result in the 
same address (it's an array, not a pointer), so there's no "data 
corruption". If x86_capability were a pointer then you would be right - 
so this is all worth cleaning up.

	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/