linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm/tlb: fix error word 'clleared' to 'cleared'

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: <FD6D2974-13DD-4FE6-B175-E0BBF5306BD8@vmware.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:58:45 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
CC:     Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm/tlb: fix error word 'clleared' to 'cleared'

On Sep 29, 2022, at 2:36 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:

> ⚠ External Email
> 
> Hi--
> 
> I would say let's fix the sentence grammar, but I don't know
> what "cleared set" means.
> 
> 
> On 9/29/22 02:10, Xin Hao wrote:
>> Just correct the wrong word 'clleared' to 'cleared'
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> index cda3118f3b27..c80a15ef0cbc 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ static inline bool pte_flags_need_flush(unsigned long oldflags,
>>              diff &= ~_PAGE_ACCESSED;
>> 
>>      /*
>> -      * Did any of the 'flush_on_clear' flags was clleared set from between
>> +      * Did any of the 'flush_on_clear' flags was cleared set from between
> 
> It should be more like:
> 
>         * Were any of the 'flush_on_clear' flags changed between
> 
> X86 people, does that make sense to you?

It’s not a test whether the flags are changed, but whether they are cleared.

Let’s see if we can make it clearer with shorter sentences. How about:
“Consider the ‘flush_on_clear’ flags that are set on ‘oldflags’; Flush if
any of these flags is cleared on ’newflags’”.