[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190415200726.GB25908@amd>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:07:26 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 03/69] x86/power/64: Use struct desc_ptr for the IDT
in struct saved_context
On Mon 2019-04-15 20:58:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> [ Upstream commit 090edbe23ff57940fca7f57d9165ce57a826bd7a ]
>
> x86_64's saved_context nonsensically used separate idt_limit and
> idt_base fields and then cast &idt_limit to struct desc_ptr *.
>
> This was correct (with -fno-strict-aliasing), but it's confusing,
> served no purpose, and required #ifdeffery. Simplify this by
> using struct desc_ptr directly.
>
> No change in functionality.
While this is nice cleanup, I don't think it fixes real bug. I don't
think it is suitable for stable.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists