linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Fix the potential data corruption

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: <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED341F2AE2@DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 29 Feb 2020 01:41:47 +0000
From:   "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
CC:     Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Fix the potential data corruption

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:sudeep.holla@....com]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 6:41 PM
> To: Zengtao (B)
> Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Sudeep Holla
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Fix the potential data corruption
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 04:35:45PM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote:
> > Currently there are only 10 bytes to store the cpu-topology info.
> > That is:
> > snprintf(buffer, 10, "cluster%d",i);
> > snprintf(buffer, 10, "thread%d",i);
> > snprintf(buffer, 10, "core%d",i);
> >
> > In the boundary test, if the cluster number exceeds 100, there will be a
> 
> I don't understand you mention of 100 in particular above. I can see
> issue
> if there are cluster with more than 2-digit id. Though highly unlikely for
> now, but I don't have objection to the patch.
>

The same meaning, more than 2-digit id equals to more than 100, right?
Here 100 is for from tester/user perspective.
And we found this issue when test with QEMU. 

> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep