linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched mprotect

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: <48F8B0FF.3010005@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:36:31 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
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

Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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.
>   

Well, the real point is that anyone doing a test on such high kernel 
addresses is almost certainly buggy anyway.  I guess a more precise 
statement is that it returns well-defined results for any va the calling 
code could reasonably be using, not for any random bit pattern.

But I think we're getting into the weeds here.

    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/