Please pull my perf.git urgent branch
kumar.gala at freescale.com
Thu Jul 29 02:15:38 EST 2010
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
> 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.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev