linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/3]: Staging: hv: Use native page allocation/free functions

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: <8AFC7968D54FB448A30D8F38F259C56233F93ED0@TK5EX14MBXC114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:30:49 +0000
From:	Hank Janssen <hjanssen@...rosoft.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	"virtualization@...ts.osdl.org" <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3]: Staging: hv: Use native page allocation/free
 functions



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@...e.de] On Friday, February 11, 2011 1:24 PM
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 08:55:56PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > > I'm not saying this patch is wrong at all, but I still don't
> > > understand why this is different depending on the architecture of
> > > the machine.  Why is this necessary, it should be ok to do the same
> > > type of allocation no matter what the processor is, right?
> >
> > You are right Greg; I don't think there is a need to specify different
> > page protection bits based on the architecture - PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC
> should be enough.
> 
> I thought so, but for some reason Hank said there this was needed.
> Hank, is it still true?

I recall we did it for older versions of Linux but I do not recall why. 
Something from way before 2.6.18, the reason of which I seem to have
Purged due to age :)

> 
> > However, this is the code that is currently in the tree - refer to osd.c.
> 
> Oh, I remember, it's not a critique of this patch, it just reminded me of this
> question I always had for this code.
> 
> > If it is ok with you, I could submit an additional patch to clean this up.
> 
> If Hank says it is ok, and you all test it to verify nothing breaks, please send it
> on.

If you could accept the patch as is and I will work with Ky to see if nothing breaks
If we change this part to what you are suggesting? If nothing breaks we will submit
A followup patch to remove those lines.

Hank.

--
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/