linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/ldt: Rename ldr_struct.size to .n

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: <CALCETrVhqMjYWT-kbOS1+dyUmokRVsKKqEN=qLsRoC+QphKE7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 15:20:01 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/ldt: Rename ldr_struct.size to .n_entries

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> do you have anything against the below renaming?
>
> ldt->size is simply confusing while it wants to be called ldt->n_entries
> as it is used like this throughout the code.

Agreed, but...

>  static int read_ldt(void __user *ptr, unsigned long bytecount)
>  {
> -       int retval;
> -       unsigned long size;
>         struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> +       unsigned long num_entries;
> +       int retval;

...

> -       size = mm->context.ldt->size * LDT_ENTRY_SIZE;
> -       if (size > bytecount)
> -               size = bytecount;
> +       num_entries = mm->context.ldt->n_entries * LDT_ENTRY_SIZE;
> +       if (num_entries > bytecount)
> +               num_entries = bytecount;

num_bytes, perhaps?

> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ static int write_ldt(void __user *ptr, unsigned long bytecount, int oldmode)
>         mutex_lock(&mm->context.lock);
>
>         old_ldt = mm->context.ldt;
> -       oldsize = old_ldt ? old_ldt->size : 0;
> +       oldsize = old_ldt ? old_ldt->n_entries : 0;

how about old_n_entries?

--Andy