| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:25:42 +0100 From: "Andreas Herrmann" <andreas.herrmann3@....com> To: "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de> cc: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>, "Suresh B Siddha" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, "Richard Gooch" <rgooch@...e-mbox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, discuss@...-64.org Subject: Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:54:57AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> I don't think I remember a restriction here, at least not below 44 bits > > >> (that's where pfn-s would need to become 64-bit wide). > > > > > >The i386 mm code only supports 4 entries in the PGD, so more than 36bit cannot > > >be mapped right now. > > > > That has nothing to do with the number of physical address bits. > > You couldn't use the memory in any ways. > > Anyways I give up -- the check is probably not needed, unless Andreas > comes up with a good reason. No, I haven't a good reason to restrict the base address to fewer than 44 bits. So the question is, should I completely remove that check or adapt it to check for 44 bit instead of 36 bit? Regards, Andreas -- AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany Operating System Research Center - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists