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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:07:37 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 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, Mar 11 2024 at 18:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 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.

Duh. I clearly was not thinking at all when I wrote this.

Thanks for spotting it.


       tglx