linux-kernel - Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:04:21 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	hans.rosenfeld@....com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 
> I went through and made a bunch of these flags signed so that they would 
> sign-extend properly in 32 vs 64 bit.  We could make them 
> unconditionally 64-bit, but I'm worried that will have unforeseen 
> consequences too.
> 
> In this case, PAGE_MASK should probably be signed too, so the sign 
> extension happens properly.
> 

Yes, it should.

> Alternatively, they could be cast to pteval_t and/or phys_addr_t so that 
> they will have an inherent size which matches the pagetable format 
> (using _AT() rather than _AC()).

Either that, or we could use a custom constructor macro (PTEVAL_C()). 
This is arguably The Right Thing, but the sign-extending version is OK, too.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/