| 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: <8bd0f97a0910291736m24f20c7ep27027691492a4bcb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:36:03 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com> To: John Linn <John.Linn@...inx.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: virtual vs physical addresses to cache functions On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:26, John Linn wrote: > Maybe this is a dumb question... you should see the stuff people put into hardware ... > I believe that the kernel expects virtual addresses to be passed to the > defined cache functions across all architectures. i believe they're virtual since most (sane) hardware virtual memory implementations are done with caches based on virtual addresses, but what do i know (leading into next point ...) > Looking at PowerPC and Blackfin confirm this I think. the Blackfin arch (which is what i work on) is a bad example as it lacks virtual memory support -mike -- 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