linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ACPI fixes for v6.9-rc6

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-=wgg2hknXUtxq8F7caSmbtRNpss0zhDwv505L25dfQBXDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:01:12 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ACPI fixes for v6.9-rc6

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 11:58, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> When that macro now has had TWO independent bugs, how about you just
> write it out with explicit types and without any broken "helpers":
>
>    static inline u64 MASK_VAL(const struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 val)
>    {
>         u64 mask = (1ull << reg->bit_width)-1;
>         return (val >> reg->bit_offset) & mask;
>    }
>
> which is a few more lines, but doesn't that make it a whole lot more readable?
>
> And maybe this time, it's not a buggy mess?

Just to clarify: that was written in the MUA, and entirely untested.
Somebody should still verify it, but really, with already now two
bugs, that macro needs fixing for good, and the "for good" should be
looking at least _something_ like the above.

And despite needing fixing, I've done the pull, since bug #2 is at
least less bad than bug#1 was.

                   Linus