linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fsldma: add support to 36-bit physical address

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, 22 Sep 2010 00:41:43 -0500
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur.tabi@...il.com>
Cc:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	Dan Malek <ppc6dev@...italdans.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Becky Bruce <beckyb@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsldma: add support to 36-bit physical address


On Sep 21, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com> wrote:
> 
>> It needs to be the actual device that is performing the DMA -- the
>> platform may need to do things such as IOMMU manipulation where
>> knowing the device matters.
> 
> Ok, this all makes sense.  So it appears that the patch is valid, at
> least in theory.  I would like to see some testing of it, but I
> realize that may be too difficult.  There's no easy way to force an
> allocation above 4GB.

I think the patch is pretty safe w/o testing.  However I agree we need a better solution to testing 36-bit addressing.

- k--
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/