linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 3/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: correct fixed counter index check in generic code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801142147320.2371@nanos>
Date:   Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:47:42 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: correct fixed counter
 index check in generic code

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:

> From: Kan Liang <Kan.liang@...el.com>
> 
> There is no index which is bigger than UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED. The only
> exception is client IMC uncore. It has customized function to deal with
> the 'UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED + 1' case. It does not touch the generic code.
> For generic code, it is not correct to use >= to check fixed counter.
> The code quality issue will bring problem when new counter index is
> introduced.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <Kan.liang@...el.com>

Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>