On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:28:54AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > Doesn't the setting of .period need to be maintained (it is in the other > powerpc perf_event implementation that this is derived from)?
Gah, yes it does. > I don't see how this is a security fix -- the existing initializer above > should zero-fill the fields that are not explicitly initialized. In fact, > it's taking other fields that were previously initialized to zero and is > making them uninitialized, since perf_sample_data_init only sets addr and > raw. So I misunderstood how an initializer for an automatic struct works. Brown paper bag time for me... :( Regarding the other fields, I assume Peter et al. have checked that they don't need to be cleared, so it's a microoptimization to not clear them. > CCing linuxppc-dev on the original patch would have been nice... True, but at least I can blame Peter Z. for that. :) Kumar and Ben, how do you want to proceed on this one? Paul. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
