On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > 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?
If we aren't concerned about an oops being generated lets just submit a patch for 2.6.36. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
