linux-kernel - Re: m68knommu: duplicate _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RISCTIMER] assignment in init

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B75451A.5050600@snapgear.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:10:02 +1000
From:	Greg Ungerer <gerg@...pgear.com>
To:	Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>
CC:	uclinux-dev@...inux.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: m68knommu: duplicate _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RISCTIMER] assignment
 in init_IRQ()

Hi Roel,

On 02/11/2010 12:10 AM, Roel Kluin wrote:
> Looking at arch/m68knommu/platform/68360/ints.c I noted two things that
> stood out:
>
> 1) on line 110:
>
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RISCTIMER]   = inthandler;  /* reserved */
>
> and 114:
>
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RISCTIMER]   = inthandler;  /* timer table */
>
> The same definitions are used, and in the first case the comment and
> definition do not correspond.

Yes, that does look odd. I am not intimately familiar with the 68360,
but looking at the underlying vector numbers I would say that the
entry with the "reserved" comment is superfluous, and should be removed.

(That code has been that way as far back as I could see,
certainly into 2.4 kernels).


> 2) while all other definitions are used like this:
>
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_DEF2]   = inthandler;
> ...
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_DEF1]   = inthandler;
>
> This is not true for CPMVEC_RESERVED:
>
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RESERVED1]   = inthandler;   /* reserved */
> ...
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RESERVED2]   = inthandler;  /* reserved */
>
> Is this a bug?

I am not sure I follow. Is it the ascending/descending numerical
ordering that you are worried about?

I don't know why the original author ordered the assignments
in the opposite order of the definitions, but I don't see it
making any difference here. So I don't see a bug.

Regards
Greg


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer  --  Principal Engineer        EMAIL:     gerg@...pgear.com
SnapGear Group, McAfee                      PHONE:       +61 7 3435 2888
8 Gardner Close,                            FAX:         +61 7 3891 3630
Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia                WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com
--
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/