linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: ioremap: fix physical address check

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:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:43:27 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: ioremap: fix physical address check

On 06/11/2010 02:20 AM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
> If the physical address is too high to be handled by ioremap() in
> x86_32 PAE (e.g. more than 36-bit physical address), ioremap() must
> return error (NULL). However, current x86 ioremap try to map this too
> high physical address, and it causes unexpected behavior.

What unexpected behavior?  It is perfectly legitimately to map such a
high address in PAE mode.  We have a 36-bit kernel-imposed limit on
*RAM* in 32-bit mode (because we can't manage more than that), but there
is no reason it should apply to I/O.

	-hpa
--
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/