linux-kernel - virtual vs physical addresses to cache functions

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <962b2e4e-74f1-47ea-8847-e16edeef151b@VA3EHSMHS013.ehs.local>
Date:	Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:26:48 -0600
From:	John Linn <John.Linn@...inx.com>
To:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: virtual vs physical addresses to cache functions

Maybe this is a dumb question...

I believe that the kernel expects virtual addresses to be passed to the
defined cache functions across all architectures.  Looking at PowerPC
and Blackfin confirm this I think.

Can someone confirm this or point to where it's documented as I have dug
for it without finding any specific details?

Thanks,
John

This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.

--
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/