linux-kernel - Re: [patch V3 20/30] x86/microcode: Sanitize __wait_for

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]

Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 10:51:33 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 20/30] x86/microcode: Sanitize __wait_for_cpus()

On Fri, Sep 22 2023 at 18:24, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:58:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> +	for (timeout = 0; timeout < USEC_PER_SEC; timeout++) {
>> +		if (!atomic_read(cnt))
>> +			return true;
>
> <---- newline here.
>
>> +		udelay(1);
>
> And here.
>
> Otherwise it looks too crammed.

Oh well.

>> +		if (!(timeout % 1000))
>
> MSEC_PER_SEC - no naked numbers pls.

MSEC_PER_SEC? Thats really wrong because timeout counts in microseconds,
no? So USEC_PER_MSEC.

>> +			touch_nmi_watchdog();
>>  	}
>> -	return 0;
>> +	/* Prevent the late comers to make progress and let them time out */
>
> s/to make progress/from making progress/
>
> Nice, otherwise.