linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: simplify cpa_process

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: <4A0C3AAA.2080908@kernel.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 May 2009 00:37:14 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, andi@...stfloor.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org,
	hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: simplify cpa_process_alias()

Hello,

Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> 14.05.09 14:49 >>>
>> The two existing alias conditions in cpa_process_alias() are mutually
>> exclusive and future ones are likely to be exclusive too.  Simplify
>> control flow to ease adding other alias cases.
>>
>> The within(vaddr, (unsigned long)_text, _brk_end) test is removed as
>> it's guaranteed to be false if vaddr is in the page mapped area.
> 
> I don't think that's correct - just consider the case where the
> originally passed in virtual address is from the vmalloc area: In
> that case, both the 1:1 mapping *and* the kernel mapping need to be
> checked.

Yeap, you're right.  I was reading the second condition in reversal.
Will update and repost.  Thanks for spotting it.

-- 
tejun
--
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/