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: <a4bdcf74-5c6f-4483-a4f0-8ad6558a3c8d@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:24:16 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
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 3/11/24 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; };
> 

and there's an extra/trailing ';'.

> 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
> 

-- 
#Randy