linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.

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: <1202222388.25021.20.camel@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:39:47 +0100
From:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	benh@...nel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.

On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 02:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Look: I can't fix *everyone's* stuff.  This was a consequence of ongoing
> > > unbounded churn in the x86 tree.  If we can find a way of preventing those
> > > guys (and everyone else) from trashing everyone else's stuff then we'd have
> > > much smoother sailing.
> > 
> > Understood. That is where I jump in and regenerate my patches on the
> > latest available level. That the patches did hold up for some months in
> > -mm now without really breaking anything is an indication that we can
> > push them upstream now, isn't ? That would make the patch problem go
> > away and I could queue my s390 specific page table rework. Our KVM
> > people keep asking about it.
> 
> yes, against 2.6.24-mm1 would be good, thanks.  I really don't know what
> went wrong in i386 but I ended up getting all grumpy at the macro mess
> we've made in all the pagetable handling.  Please do take a look at
> improving that.

I'm trying to replace the __pte_free_tlb macros my patch touches for the
different architectures. Not much luck yet, there is a reason why
__pte_free_tlb is a macro in the first place: welcome to #include hell.
I'm starting to get grumpy as well..

Just an example for x86-64:
* asm-x86/tlb.h includes asm-generic/tlb.h
* asm-generic/tlb.h includes asm-x86/pgalloc.h
* asm-x86/pgalloc.h includes asm-x86/pgalloc_64.h
* asm-x86/pgalloc_64.h includes asm-x86/tlb.h
* since asm-x86/tlb.h started this #include chain it expands to nothing
* asm-x86/pgalloc_64.h calls tlb_remove_page which is defined in
  asm-x86/tlb.h but the compiler hasn't seen the definition yet
* you loose..

I got x86-64 compiled by removing the #include <asm/pgalloc.h> from
asm-generic/tlb.h. But who knows what will break if the include is
missing .. I'll cross compile some of the other architectures next.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
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/