linux-kernel - Re: [patches] Re: [PATCH] x86-64: adjust pmd

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200611151823.20520.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:23:20 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	patches@...-64.org
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patches] Re: [PATCH] x86-64: adjust pmd_bad()

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 18:01, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
> > Make pmd_bad() symmetrical to pgd_bad() and pud_bad(). At once,
> > simplify them all.
> 
> Symmetrical and simpler, yes, but you're weakening the pmd_bad() test:
> no longer requires that all those _KERNPG_TABLE bits be set.  Wouldn't
> it be better to go the other way and strengthen pgd_bad, pud_bad?

That's a good point. Yes that would be better.  If it works :) 

They can't be completely the same because we don't set large page bits on
PGDs (on PUDs we will eventually with 1GB pages) 

-Andi
-
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/