linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

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: <5f72de39-4e4e-ccc3-5167-d5c498830dcf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:07:40 +0800
From:   Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable
 position

Hi David,

At 09/07/2016 05:23 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote:
>
>> This is a code optimization.
>>
>
> Not sure that it's optimization, it's just for correctness.

Yes, I see. I will improve it in next version.

Thanks,
Dou

>
>> If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure,
>> it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the
>> disabled_cpus will plus one. However, the num-processors has already
>> been added one above. That may cause the number of processors incorrect.
>>
>> Just put the num_processors++ code in the more suitable position.
>> it makes sure that the num-processors will not conflict with the
>> disabled_cpus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
>
>