linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/vdso: Fix function reference in comment

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: <26cd7080-b8c8-41a8-814b-869759954b73@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:11:51 +0100
From: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/vdso: Fix function reference in comment



On 01/07/2024 15:47, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> Replace the reference to the non-existent function arch_vdso_cycles_valid()
> by the proper function arch_vdso_cycles_ok().
> 
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: x86@...nel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>

Reviewed-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>

> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h
> index 0ef36190abe6..b2d2df026f6e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h
> @@ -328,9 +328,8 @@ static __always_inline u64 vdso_calc_ns(const struct vdso_data *vd, u64 cycles,
>  	 * due to unsigned comparison.
>  	 *
>  	 * Due to the MSB/Sign-bit being used as invalid marker (see
> -	 * arch_vdso_cycles_valid() above), the effective mask is S64_MAX,
> -	 * but that case is also unlikely and will also take the unlikely path
> -	 * here.
> +	 * arch_vdso_cycles_ok() above), the effective mask is S64_MAX, but that
> +	 * case is also unlikely and will also take the unlikely path here.
>  	 */
>  	if (unlikely(delta > vd->max_cycles)) {
>  		/*
> 

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo