linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remove PAGE_SIZE from headers

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: <46999253.6020004@zytor.com>
Date:	Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:19:47 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>
CC:	olaf@...fle.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove PAGE_SIZE from headers_install

Albert Cahalan wrote:
> 
> A real constant-value PAGE_SIZE is useful and doable.
> 
> It's useful because a getpagesize() can't be used for numerous
> things, such as setting the size of an array.
> 
> It's doable, even on architectures that support multiple page
> sizes, because ABIs specify alignment requirements. There are
> two alignments of interest here:
> 
> a. the smallest that mmap() will ever naturally return on any
>   correct implementation of the architecture's ABI ("naturally"
>   meaning that MAP_FIXED was not used)
> 
> b. the smallest that mprotect() will tolerate on all
>   correct implementations of the architecture
> 
> Pick either to be the Linux definition of PAGE_SIZE.
> 

If you specify it to be one of these, people will mis-use it for the
other.  This is a bad idea.

	-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/