linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] acpi: apei: fix the wrong iteration of generic error status block

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]

Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:57:22 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Dongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
Cc:     will.deacon@....com, zjzhang@...eaurora.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, tbaicar@...eaurora.org,
        james.morse@....com, geliangtang@...il.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        austinwc@...eaurora.org, lenb@...nel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxarm@...wei.com, john.garry@...wei.com, shiju.jose@...wei.com,
        zhengqiang10@...wei.com, wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com,
        huangshaoyu@...wei.com, wuquanming@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] acpi: apei: fix the wrong iteration of generic error status block

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:43:49 PM CEST Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:07:18PM +0800, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
> > The revision 0x300 generic error data entry is different
> > from the old version, but currently iterating through the
> > GHES estatus blocks does not take into account this difference.
> > This will lead to failure to get the right data entry if GHES
> > has revision 0x300 error data entry.
> > 
> > Update the GHES estatus iteration to properly increment using
> > iteration macro,
> 
> This is not what I meant - I meant:
> 
> "Update the GHES estatus iteration macro to properly increment using
> acpi_hest_get_next(), and ..."
> 
> But you don't need to send another version.
> 
> Rafael, please correct that when applying, instead.

Well, I think I did that. :-)

Anyway, applied.

Thanks!