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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 22:20:26 +0800 From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries On 08/11/16 at 10:46am, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > - count = madt_proc[1].count; > > > > + count = madt_proc[0].count; > > > > + x2count = madt_proc[1].count; > > > > } > > > > if (!count && !x2count) { > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I mean here the value checking won't be impacted by the wrong > > assignment. > > Indeed! > > Mind putting that into the changelog? Something like: > > "By pure accident the bug makes no functional difference, because the only > expression where we are using these values is (!count && !x2count), in which > the variables are interchangeable, but it makes sense to fix the bug > nevertheless." Sure, this is much clearer. Will use this and repost. Thanks a lot, will try to do each post using patch log like this. Thanks Baoquan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists