[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86802c440804151830h3917619ct5f1077530020f13f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:30:51 -0700
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Mel Gorman" <mel@....ul.ie>,
"Nick Piggin" <npiggin@...e.de>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, apw@...dowen.org,
"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: sparsemem memory_present() memory corruption fix
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > > > this is the only call to memory_present() we do in 32-bit arch
> > > > setup, so it's required.
> > >
> > > We could clip there if SPARSEMEM is configured. I wonder if this
> > > affects other platforms that need HIGHMEM support?
> >
> > clip where and what?
>
> i.e. as per my previous argument i'd consider the need to sanitize the
> calls in the architecture fundamentally wrong.
>
> whether the core code emits a warning or allows the call is an
> additional question i mention in the changelog - but the core sparse
> memory code should _definitely_ not silently overflow a key internal
> array ... (of which data structure the architecture code is not even
> aware of)
or you can move that check into find_max_pfn for x86_32? so it will
not affect other platform regarding Christoph's concern?
YH
--
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