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:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:35:29 +0100
From:   Juergen Gross <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/mem_encrypt_identity : fix error useage to sizeof

On 15/01/2019 11:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 15/01/2019 11:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, wrote:
>>>>>> Fix error usage to sizeof. It should not use sizeof to pointer.
>>>>> .... because?
>>>>> The commit message needs to explain what the potential issue could be
>>>>> and why it doesn't matter in this case.
>>>> I see the definition of pte_t may be more than sizeof(unsigned long).
>>>> So I think sizeof(pte_t) is safer.
>>> What exactly is the difference between:
>>> 	pte_t	*p;
>>> 	sizeof(*p)
>>> and
>>> 	sizeof(pte_t)
>>> and what is safer about the latter?
>> Please note that the current code is using sizeof(p) instead of sizeof(*p).
> Ooops. That's wrong indeed, but we should not change it to sizeof(pte_t)
> and change it to sizeof(*p) instead.

And that's what the patch does.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists