linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Drop redundant memory-block sizing code

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]

Message-ID: <20141106104034.GB4849@pd.tnic>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:40:35 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Drop redundant memory-block sizing code

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:33:40PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> As the first check for 64GB or larger memory returns a 2GB memory block size
> in that case, the following check for less than 64GB will always evaluate
> true, leading to unreachable code.

I'm reading this as this code is never running on systems < 64GB. Why is
that so?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/