On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:10:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
That's pretty strange code in there.
If the comment is to be believed, isn't this a suitable fix?
--- a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c~a
+++ a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ static int __amd64_set_scrub_rate(struct
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:26:12 +0200
Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
From: Denis Kirjanov kirja...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:30:58 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] amd64_edac: Fix hypothetical out-of-bounds access
Make sure we stay within scrubrates' array bounds.
Boris: this is a
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:37:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
This is still strange. What's the point in having the initial loop
even consider the last element in the array if we know we'll be using
it anyway?
You're right, yours is better.
Now you only need to give me a proper patch with
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:49:26 +0200
Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
Now you only need to give me a proper patch with your S-O-B and we're
ready to go :).
who, me, what?!?! Sounds stressful.
umm, OK here we go.
What I don't understand is the effects of the bug. If the present code
can
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:09:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:49:26 +0200
Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
Now you only need to give me a proper patch with your S-O-B and we're
ready to go :).
who, me, what?!?! Sounds stressful.
Yeah, this is to show you
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:38:45 +0200
Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
And I see you'll carry this patch so I won't send it to Linus next merge
window so thanks for this!
No, please merge it yourself. Once it (or a version of it) turns up in
linux-next, I'll drop my copy. Merging stuff I
