From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 08:24:17 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Luis Henriques Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Brian Gerst , "H. Peter Anvin" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Lutomriski , Linus Torvalds , Dirk Hohndel , Arjan van de Ven , comex , Alexander van Heukelum , Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 12/27] x86-64, espfix: Dont leak bits 31:16 of %esp returning to 16-bit stack Message-ID: <20140806152417.GB15463@kroah.com> References: <20140805181344.268039690@linuxfoundation.org> <20140805181344.629775899@linuxfoundation.org> <20140806151620.GD12150@hercules> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140806151620.GD12150@hercules> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Luis Henriques wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:14:04AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > <...> > > @@ -188,17 +193,21 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m > > /* > > * Now print the actual finished series > > */ > > - seq_printf(m, "0x%0*lx-0x%0*lx ", > > - width, st->start_address, > > - width, st->current_address); > > - > > - delta = (st->current_address - st->start_address) >> 10; > > - while (!(delta & 1023) && unit[1]) { > > - delta >>= 10; > > - unit++; > > + if (!st->marker->max_lines || > > + st->lines < st->marker->max_lines) { > > + seq_printf(m, "0x%0*lx-0x%0*lx ", > > + width, st->start_address, > > + width, st->current_address); > > + > > + delta = (st->current_address - st->start_address) >> 10; > > + while (!(delta & 1023) && unit[1]) { > > + delta >>= 10; > > + unit++; > > + } > > + seq_printf(m, "%9lu%c ", delta, *unit); > > + printk_prot(m, st->current_prot, st->level); > > } > > - seq_printf(m, "%9lu%c ", delta, *unit); > > - printk_prot(m, st->current_prot, st->level); > > + st->lines++; > > > > /* > > * We print markers for special areas of address space, > > Hmm... the original commit has a 2nd hunk here that does seem to be > applicable to 3.10. Was this dropped accidentally or on purpose? I don't remember at all, sorry. What is the hunk that I missed? thanks, greg k-h