linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Mark i2o config broken on 64-bit platforms.

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: <24339.1215620298@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:18:18 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	alan@...hat.com, Markus.Lidel@...dowconnect.com, vvs@...ru,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mark i2o config broken on 64-bit platforms.

Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> 64bit kernel 32bit user space should be fine,

There's a place I pointed out in an earlier email where it appears a 64-bit
kernel can screw up, even with a 32-bit userspace.  It allocates a piece of
RAM with kmalloc(), takes the address of it, passes that through
virt_to_bus(), discards the upper 32-bits from the result and posts it in an
I2O message, presumably to the device.  That would appear likely to go kaboom
on a 64-bit system with more than 4GB of RAM.

If the device doesn't use that address, then why pass it at all?

David
--
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/