linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 28/31] memblock: Export MEMBLOCK

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]

Date:	Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:25:31 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	hpa@...or.com, yinghai@...nel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/31] memblock: Export MEMBLOCK_ERROR again

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 23:01 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > On x86, physical address 0 contains the real-mode IVT and will thus be
> > reserved, at least for the forseeable future.  Other architectures may
> > very well have non-special RAM there.
> 
> 0 is very much possible on sparc64 

Yup, we need to fix that.

For now I made MEMBLOCK_ERROR 0 and added a blurb to prevent allocating
the first page since it would cause other problems with the current code
(0 is after all the normal error result from membloc_alloc(), ie, our
API wasn't quite consistent there).

So I don't think I'm introducing a regression here, on the contrary. But
if we are going to allow lmb_alloc() to return 0, we need to fix all
callers first and then we can look into turning MEMBLOCK_ERROR back to
~0

Cheers,
Ben.

--
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/