| 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: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:08:59 +0800 From: "Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, hpa@...or.com, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel parameter vmalloc size fix On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote: > > * Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> wrote: > >> booting kernel with vmalloc=[any size<=16m] will oops. >> >> It's due to the vm area hole. >> >> In include/asm-x86/pgtable_32.h: >> #define VMALLOC_OFFSET (8 * 1024 * 1024) >> #define VMALLOC_START (((unsigned long)high_memory + 2 * VMALLOC_OFFSET - 1) \ >> & ~(VMALLOC_OFFSET - 1)) >> >> BUG_ON in arch/x86/mm/init_32.c will be triggered: >> BUG_ON((unsigned long)high_memory > VMALLOC_START); >> >> Fixed by return -EINVAL for invalid parameter > > hm. Why dont we instead add the size of the hole to the > __VMALLOC_RESERVE value instead? There's nothing inherently bad about > using vmalloc=16m. The VM area hole is really a kernel-internal > abstraction that should not be visible in the usage of the parameter. Good suggestion, thanks. I will rewrite the patch and send. -- Regards dave -- 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