linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/20] ARM: LPAE: Add fault handling support

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: <20101122133216.GI31227@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:32:16 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/20] ARM: LPAE: Add fault handling support

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 01:19:27PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:15 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 06:00:31PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > @@ -108,7 +113,9 @@ void show_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
> > > 
> > >               pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
> > >               printk(", *pte=%08lx", pte_val(*pte));
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
> > >               printk(", *ppte=%08lx", pte_val(pte[-LINUX_PTE_OFFSET]));
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > This is an unrelated change - should it be in a different patch?
> 
> It was intended to be in this patch as I couldn't find a better place.
> This patch sorts out the fault handling (and error reporting) for LPAE
> and we don't need the additional printk here.

It doesn't sort the fault error reporting actually.  With pte_val()
returning u64 constants on LPAE, all the above printk's using %08lx will
issue warnings.

Also, as one of your previous patches changed the non-LPAE stuff to use
u32, which is 'unsigned int', %08lx is wrong for them too, and will cause
the compiler to spit out warnings.

I can only assume this patch hasn't been build-tested, or maybe it has
but the warnings ignored?

It seems a larger patch is required here - and as such might as well
become a separate "fix fault reporting" patch.
--
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/