linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, cacheinfo: Calculate L3 indexes

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:	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:15:31 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, andreas.herrmann3@....com,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, cacheinfo: Calculate L3 indexes

On 01/19/2010 03:07 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> We need to know the valid L3 indexes interval when disabling them over
> /sysfs. Do that when the core is brought online and add boundary checks
> to the sysfs .store attribute.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
> @@ -161,6 +162,7 @@ struct _cpuid4_info_regs {
>  	union _cpuid4_leaf_ecx ecx;
>  	unsigned long size;
>  	unsigned long can_disable;
> +	unsigned int l3_indexes;
>  };
>  

Hmmm... 32, 64, 64, 32 bits... we could move up the l3_indexes variable
here.   However, more likely is that "size" and "can_disable" have no
business being unsigned long in the first place -- especially the latter
seems to be actually used as a boolean, and really should be "bool".

Second, the preferred plural of "index" is "indices" (although both are
correct and present in the kernel source.)

	-hpa
--
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/