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:	Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hpa@...or.com
Cc:	benh@...nel.crashing.org, 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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:53:21 -0700

> On 07/27/2010 10:19 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> 
>> Screw it, I don't like it but I'll just split your patch in two for now
>> and keep 0. It's a bit fishy but memblock does mostly top-down
>> allocations and so shouldn't hit 0, and in practice the region at 0 is,
>> I beleive, reserved, but we need to be extra careful and might need to
>> revisit that a bit.
>> 
>> That's an area where I don't completely agree with Linus, ie, 0 is a
>> perfectly valid physical address for memblock to return :-)
>> 
> 
> 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
--
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