linux-kernel - Re: [x86_64] Implementation differences compared to x86

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200810131528.17115.goretux@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:28:17 +0200
From:	Eric Lacombe <goretux@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [x86_64] Implementation differences compared to x86_32

On Monday 13 October 2008 15:03:02 Andi Kleen wrote:
> Eric Lacombe <tuxiko@...e.fr> writes:
> > - In x86_32, the physical memory is mapped on kernel land by way of 4 MB
> > pages.
> > But for x86_64, I read that the physical memory was mapped by way of 4 KB
> > pages. Is it true ? and in this case, why this choice ?
>
> It's normally not true (except in some special circumstances)

What are these particular circumstances ?

	Eric

--
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/