linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] x86: Handle error returns in set_memory

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:	Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:36:04 +0200
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86: Handle error returns in set_memory_*

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:
>> Correctly handle the error returns from set_memory_*. We have to free
>> memtype on error return path.
> 
> we should emit a kernel warning as well if any of those calls fail.
> Drivers should not be randomly poking on RAM ranges.

Has this comment from Ingo been addressed already?
 
> i'm also missing some background on this, could you please explain in a
> bit more detail about what errors there were triggered, and how they
> caused the display artifacts?

I would be interested in this as well.

As I mentioned before, I only tested with the first of the two patches  
(as you asked me to) and that solved the artifacts for me. What's the 
explanation behind that?

What is the relationship between the first and second patch?

Cheers,
FJP
--
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/