| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <49BC933F.3090507@kernel.org> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:33:51 -0700 From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Latest brk patchset H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Yinghai Lu wrote: >> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> On this subject, what is the point of the 64 K "slop space", and if it >>> is necessary, why not just put it as a RESERVE_BRK() somewhere (*with* a >>> significant comment as to its necessity) instead of putting it as a >>> hack in the linker script? >>> >> >> 32bit already have that >> >> +INIT_MAP_SIZE = (PAGE_TABLE_SIZE + ALLOCATOR_SLOP) * PAGE_SIZE_asm >> +RESERVE_BRK(pagetables, INIT_MAP_SIZE) >> >> in head_32.S >> >> so need to update vmlinux_32.lds.S >> > > What about 64 bits? Also, do we really need the "allocator slop", or > can we push that into the user location, which is where it really > belongs? What does use this? 64 bit does not has this problem. 32 bit we already removed bootmem there, that is not needed. ALLOCATOR_SLOP is needed... + * (KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE/4096) / 1024 pages (worst case, non PAE) + * (KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE/4096) / 512 + 4 pages (worst case for PAE) YH -- 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