linux-kernel - Re: GIT head no longer boots on x86-64

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, 15 Oct 2008 17:33:42 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: GIT head no longer boots on x86-64

On 10/15/2008 05:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Queued the fix below up in tip/x86/urgent for a merge to Linus later 
>> today. Thanks!
> 
> Please don't send this crap to me.
> 
> Guys, _look_ at the patch for one second. And then tell me it isn't crap. 

Not in my eyes.

> The question is: "Is this a vmalloc'ed area?". That's the name of the 
> function. AND YOU JUST BROKE IT!

Modules area is vmalloc'ed on x86; on x86_64 only in different virtual address
space area. So returning true from is_vmalloc_addr() for this space looks very
sane to me, as it was on x86_32 for years.

Users usually do
is_vmalloc_addr(a) ? vfree(a) : kfree(a);
Even there it makes more sense to me.

However I'm fine with introducing is_module_addr() alike function for x86 to
check the general modules space bounds on x86_64 and return is_vmalloc_addr() on
x86_32. Does this look better?
--
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/