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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20090205205606.GG10229@movementarian.org>
Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:56:06 -0500
From:	wli@...ementarian.org
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.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

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, wli@...ementarian.org wrote:
>> The RW bit needs to be allowed to become read-only for hugetlb COW.
>> Changing it over to the 32-bit method is a bugfix by that token.

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 08:14:42PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> If there's a bugfix to be made there, of course I'm in favour:
> but how come we've never seen such a bug?  hugetlb COW has been
> around for a year or two by now, hasn't it?

We can tell from the code that a write-protected pte mapping of a
1GB hugetlb page would be flagged as bad. It must not be called on
ptes mapping hugetlb pages if they're not getting flagged.


-- wli
--
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/