linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] riscv: Simplify text patching loops

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: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:12:34 -0500
From: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 'Björn Töpel' <bjorn@...nel.org>,
 Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] riscv: Simplify text patching loops

Hi David,

On 2024-02-19 4:13 PM, David Laight wrote:
> ...
>>> -	while (patched < len && !ret) {
>>> -		size = min_t(size_t, PAGE_SIZE * 2 - offset_in_page(addr + patched), len - patched);
>>> -		ret = __patch_insn_set(addr + patched, c, size);
>>> +	while (len && !ret) {
>>> +		size = min_t(size_t, PAGE_SIZE * 2 - offset_in_page(addr), len);
> 
> Does that need to be min_t()?
> Both arguments seem to be unsigned.
> (Did it even ever need to be?)

You're right, this never needed min_t(). I'll update this for v2.

Regards,
Samuel