[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <48F8CBC4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:30:44 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"Chris Lalancette" <clalance@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched
mprotect
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> 17.10.08 17:19 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> 16.10.08 18:10 >>>
>>>>>
>>> The current x86-64 implementation is:
>>>
>>> bool __virt_addr_valid(unsigned long x)
>>> {
>>> if (x >= __START_KERNEL_map) {
>>> x -= __START_KERNEL_map;
>>> if (x >= KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE)
>>> return false;
>>>
>>
>> This, imo, is still broken (i.e. the name of the function still isn't matched
>> by the implementation): KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is a constant and doesn't
>> account for the fact that only the real kernel image can be relied upon
>> to be mapped.
>>
>
>Perhaps, but I don't think it matters too much. Unless you have a tiny
>amount of physical memory, locations in the kernel mapping beyond the
>actual kernel will still resolve to proper locations in the linear map.
Is e.g. 256Mb tiny? KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE these days is 512Mb... Indeed,
when it was 40Mb (up until a few releases ago), this indeed wouldn't
matter.
Jan
--
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