| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:46:14 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/20] ARM: LPAE: Do not assume Linux PTEs are always at PTRS_PER_PTE offset On 15 November 2010 17:42, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 06:00:24PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> Placing the Linux PTEs at a 2KB offset inside a page is a workaround for >> the 2-level page table format where not enough spare bits are available. >> With LPAE this is no longer required. This patch changes such assumption >> by using a different macro, LINUX_PTE_OFFSET, which is defined to >> PTRS_PER_PTE for the 2-level page tables. > > Hmm. I think we should be doing this a different way - in fact, I think > we should switch the order of the linux vs hardware page tables. This > actually simplifies the code a bit too - notice that we lose the arith. > in __pte_map, __pte_unmap, pmd_page_vaddr, which is all page table > walking stuff. It looks like a good clean-up to me (though I need some refactoring on my LPAE patches). Do you plan to push this upstream? If you add a comment and a signed-off line, I can carry it in my LPAE branch until it appears in mainline. Thanks. -- Catalin -- 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