linux-kernel - [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] shorten the x86_64 boot setup GDT to what the comment says

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]

Message-Id: <455357C9.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date:	Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:31:05 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] shorten the x86_64 boot setup GDT to
	what the comment says

>>> Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> 09.11.06 14:13 >>>
>
>> Stephen Tweedie has written up a patch to fix the Xen side and will be
>> submitting that to those folks. But that doesn't excuse the GDT limit
>> being a magnitude too big.
>
>Added thanks

Once at this - why not set it to the *correct* value, just like i386 does,
and update the comment at once? Namely, why would you expect to
never run into the original problem again if there are still possible
selectors pointing into invalid, yet within limits parts of the GDT?

Jan
-
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/