linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] x86: use PTE

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805201346120.24102@blonde.site>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2008 13:57:20 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...glemail.com>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, airlied@...ux.ie,
	"Barnes, Jesse" <jesse.barnes@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] x86: use PTE_MASK consistently

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 
> Here's a series to rationalize the use of PTE_MASK and remove some
> amount of ad-hocery.
> 
> This gist of the series is:
>  1. Fix the definition of PTE_MASK so that its equally applicable in
>     all pagetable modes
>  2. Use it consistently
> 
> I haven't tried to address the *_bad() stuff, other than to convert
> pmd_bad_* to use PTE_MASK.
> 
> This series has had some testing in the x86.git tree, and hasn't shown
> any problems.  Each patch is more or less absolutely trivial and the
> series is very bisectable, to help track down any problems which might
> arise (this area has always been a source of subtle problems).

Yes, thanks Jeremy: I've checked that each stage builds and runs X on my
boxes here, x86_32 and x86_32+PAE and x86_64.  (So even 1/8 is enough to
fix the PAT pte_modify issue, though 2/8 then fixes compiler warnings.)

I'll leave it to you and Linus whether your way of defining PTE_MASK is
satisfactory as is, or needs to be improved to his way.  I've not tried
his suggestion of doing the _PAGE_BIT definitions: certainly it's
seemed odd to me that they were defined with L, but I've little
appetite to mess around with them now myself.

One thing I did do a few days ago, but not got around to posting,
was the *_bad() stuff.  I've retested and will post that now...

Hugh
--
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/