linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix virt_addr_valid() with CONFIG_DEBUG

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:	Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:26:59 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
CC:	Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix virt_addr_valid() with CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y

On 10/01/2008 01:15 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com> wrote:
>> x86_64 is screwed in the same way, isn't it?
> 
> Hm. I didn't see any #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL in the x86_64 code,
> so I assumed it wasn't. But it seems that you are right (because the
> checks, or at least some kind of checks, are _always_ performed on
> x86_64 regardless of the CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL setting). Why doesn't
> the checking in x86_64 code depend on DEBUG_VIRTUAL?

Yeah, it does: VIRTUAL_BUG_ON depends on it...

x86_64 just distinguish pointer to kernel image addresses (which are mapped only
up to kernel image size from phys_base physical address) and whole physical
memory map at another virtual address.
--
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/