linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Correct a tiny mistake in code comment

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: <20170308093555.yrhygjxx4mu562lp@pd.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:35:55 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, thgarnie@...gle.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Correct a tiny mistake in code comment

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:09:55PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> Yes, it looks better. I can repost with this change. Thanks.

No it doesn't:

#define EFI_VA_START     ( -4 * (_AC(1, UL) << 30))
#define EFI_VA_END       (-68 * (_AC(1, UL) << 30))

That's -4G (the shift by 30) and -68G, respectively.

> > #define EFI_VA_START    _AC(0xfffffffeffffffff, UL)
> > #define EFI_VA_END    _AC(0xffffffef00000000, UL)

That is something which I need to type into a calculator first.

Can you guys point your attention to something which is really broken
and stop wasting your time? And there's enough really broken crap left
and right...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.