linux-kernel - Definition of x86 _PAGE_SPECIAL and sharing _PAGE

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48B5A4B0.9050308@goop.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:02:08 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Hugh Dickens <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Definition of x86 _PAGE_SPECIAL and sharing _PAGE_UNUSED1

_PAGE_SPECIAL is overloading _PAGE_UNUSED1.  Does it really leave
_PAGE_UNUSED1 available for other uses, or does it become an exclusive
user of that flag.  Under what circumstances can they be shared?

arch/x86/mm/pageattr-test.c is now using _PAGE_UNUSED1 as the flag used
to make sure that huge pages are shattered properly (previously it used
_PAGE_GLOBAL).  Is that going to clash with _PAGE_SPECIAL?

In other words, should we drop _PAGE_UNUSED1 altogether, or at least
define how the its different users can coexist?

Am I right in supposing that _PAGE_SPECIAL can only be set on user pages?

(Also, "SPECIAL" is awfully generic.  Was there really no more
descriptive name for this?)

    J
--
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/