| 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: <20100727.230120.43037767.davem@davemloft.net> 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