From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:47:31 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: Please pull my perf.git urgent branch Message-ID: <20100728044731.GA2408@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20100727124019.GB14947@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20100727112854.7bf97d48@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20100727112854.7bf97d48@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Kumar Gala , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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.