linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.9

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: <CAHk-=whTBKoHrBpMxh7OHQ=pcdy6K2zqqsJOZeCC4xSqRXb5Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:12:54 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.9

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 08:57, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> -       return topology_die_id(err->cpu) % amd_get_nodes_per_socket();
> +       return topology_amd_node_id(err->cpu) % topology_amd_nodes_per_pkg();

Ho humm. Lookie here:

    static inline unsigned int topology_amd_nodes_per_pkg(void)
    { return 0; };

that's the UP case.

Yeah, I'm assuming nobody tests this for UP, but it's clearly wrong to
potentially do that modulus by zero.

So I made the merge also change that UP case of
topology_amd_nodes_per_pkg() to return 1.

Because dammit, not only is a mod-by-zero wrong, a UP system most
definitely has one node per package, not zero.

               Linus