linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify HIGHMEM-related Kconfig entries

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:	Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:10:20 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify HIGHMEM-related Kconfig entries

Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> 	No highmem	- No highmem, no PAE
>>> 	HIGHMEM4G	- Highmem, no PAE
>>> 	HIGHMEM64G	- Highmem, PAE
>>>
>>> So X86_PAE and HIGHMEM4G is a bit of a contradiction.  I haven't looked 
>>> at the logic in detail, or remember offhand if there have been any 
>>> weakening of the definitions above; e.g. someone could have implemented 
>>> a way to do PAE without highmem, to get access to the NX bits.
>> Exactly - .23 made PAE an independently selectable option (in 
>> particular, the no-highmem+PAE combination is now valid), but I can't 
>> see why it added the !HIGHMEM4G dependency.
> 
> There's no deep reason, it just has never really been tested that way. I 
> think we should try it.

If so, what would be the difference between HIGHMEM4G and HIGHMEM64G in
that case at all?

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/