linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] mce-inject: use injected mce only during faked handler call

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:	Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:31:21 +0900
From:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mce-inject: use injected mce only during faked handler
 call

Huang Ying wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 15:27 +0800, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: 
>> Huang Ying wrote:
>>> This is another example for you to use my idea, implement it in a
>>> similar way and send it out as your own.
>> I used "Reported-by:" for this patch, having some intent to indicate
>> that this patch uses an idea different from the original one, and that
>> this patch aims at the problem certainly reported by you.
> 
> The point of the idea is to use two flags instead of one flag, not the
> name of the flag or they are inside/outside of struct mce.

Humm, I could be wrong and could misread your comment...

The point of my idea is to use two separated flags, "inject_flags" for
inject tool and "valid" for kernel, instead of one flag as you proposed,
"inject_flags" shared by both. 
And I think the flag for kernel should be outside of struct mce.

Once I complained about the name of flag ".finished", because you were
trying to add "LOADED" flag.  I thought that "if .finished but !LOADED, it
means the loading data to struct is finished but not loaded.. ???what???"

So at first I tried to add 3rd state to ".finished", but soon I agreed
that it is not good idea.

After that I started to think about having two separated flags, and the
result is this [6/6] patch in -v2.

In short, I believe that my idea is "use two flags" and your idea is
"share one flag" ... right?

The only thing what I want to do here is merge your "fix" into upstream.

Thanks,
H.Seto

--
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/