linux-kernel - pud_bad vs pud

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <498B2EBC.60700@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:23:56 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: pud_bad vs pud_bad

I'm looking at unifying the 32 and 64-bit versions of pud_bad.

32-bits defines it as:

static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud)
{
	return (pud_val(pud) & ~(PTE_PFN_MASK | _KERNPG_TABLE | _PAGE_USER)) != 0;
}

and 64 as:

static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud)
{
	return (pud_val(pud) & ~(PTE_PFN_MASK | _PAGE_USER)) != _KERNPG_TABLE;
}


I'm inclined to go with the 64-bit version, but I'm wondering if there's 
something subtle I'm missing here.

Thoughts?

    J
--
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/