linux-kernel - Re: pud_bad vs pud

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <498B4F1F.5070306@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:42:07 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...ementarian.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> However... I forget how the folding works out.  The pgd in the 32-bit
> PAE case used to have just the pfn and the present bit set in that
> little array of four entries: if pud_bad() ends up getting applied
> to that, I guess it will blow up.
>   

Ah, that's a good point.

> If so, my preferred answer would actually be to make those 4 entries
> look more like real ptes; but you may think I'm being a bit silly.
>   

Hardware doesn't allow it.  It will explode (well, trap) if you set 
anything other than P in the top level.

By the by, what are the chances we'll be able to deprecate non-PAE 32-bit?

    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/