linux-kernel - [PATCH 40/41] Documentation: x86: fix spelling mistakes

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: <1461566229-4717-14-git-send-email-eric@engestrom.ch>
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:37:06 +0100
From:	Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 40/41] Documentation: x86: fix spelling mistakes

Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>
---
 Documentation/x86/intel_mpx.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/x86/intel_mpx.txt b/Documentation/x86/intel_mpx.txt
index 818518a..1a5a121 100644
--- a/Documentation/x86/intel_mpx.txt
+++ b/Documentation/x86/intel_mpx.txt
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ A: MPX-enabled application will possibly create a lot of bounds tables in
    If we were to preallocate them for the 128TB of user virtual address
    space, we would need to reserve 512TB+2GB, which is larger than the
    entire virtual address space today. This means they can not be reserved
-   ahead of time. Also, a single process's pre-popualated bounds directory
+   ahead of time. Also, a single process's pre-populated bounds directory
    consumes 2GB of virtual *AND* physical memory. IOW, it's completely
    infeasible to prepopulate bounds directories.
 
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ A: This would work if we could hook the site of each and every memory
    these calls.
 
 Q: Could a bounds fault be handed to userspace and the tables allocated
-   there in a signal handler intead of in the kernel?
+   there in a signal handler instead of in the kernel?
 A: mmap() is not on the list of safe async handler functions and even
    if mmap() would work it still requires locking or nasty tricks to
    keep track of the allocation state there.
-- 
2.8.0