linux-kernel - Re: PTE access rules & abstraction

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:31:26 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: PTE access rules & abstraction

On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 05:10 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> We are getting better slowly I think (eg. you note that set_pte_at is
> no longer used as a generic "do anything"), but I won't dispute that
> this whole area could use an overhaul; a document for all the rules,
> a single person or point of responsibility for those rules...

Can we nowadays -rely- on set_pte_at() never being called to overwrite
an already valid PTE ? I mean, it looks like the generic code doesn't do
it anymore but I wonder if it's reasonable to forbid that from coming
back ? That would allow me to remove some hacks in ppc64 and simplify
some upcoming ppc32 code.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/