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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8b744304-a1a2-f75e-dfc5-784961825a7a@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:44:15 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
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 9/29/22 15:58, Nadav Amit wrote:
> 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’”.
> 

Sounds good. Thanks for your help.

-- 
~Randy