linux-kernel - Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems

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: <20100409180942.GK30801@buzzloop.caiaq.de>
Date:	Fri, 9 Apr 2010 20:09:42 +0200
From:	Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@...il.com>,
	Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 12:01:27PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Pedro Ribeiro wrote:
> > here is the output of the patch you sent me when the interference is triggered.
> > 
> > The log is long, 1.3mb in size.
> 
> I don't see anything suspicious.  The transfer_buffer addresses repeat 
> every 32 URBs, and the DMA addresses cycle almost entirely uniformly 
> from 0x20000000 to 0x23ffffff in units of 0x2000 (there are a few gaps 
> where the interval is a little bigger).

The DMA pointers do indeed look sane. I wanted to take a deeper look at
this and set up a 64bit system today. However, I fail to see the problem
here. Pedro, how much RAM does your machine have installed?

Daniel

--
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/