linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] hpwdt: clean up set_memory

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: <9774516974AF5F4C8A2C3C69CD3412332032E846@G9W0755.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:05:53 +0000
From:	"Mingarelli, Thomas" <Thomas.Mingarelli@...com>
To:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@...cle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	dann frazier <dannf@...com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] hpwdt: clean up set_memory_x call for 32 bit

Yes I agree that Maxim's patch is correct. The original set_memory_x call for 64 bit was done correctly and the newer calls are wrong.

The 2 pages for the BIOS SD is a known value so it should be safe to use as is.



Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Wim Van Sebroeck [mailto:wim@...ana.be] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:38 PM
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Maxim Uvarov; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; stable@...r.kernel.org; Mingarelli, Thomas; dann frazier
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hpwdt: clean up set_memory_x call for 32 bit

Hi Linus,

> So I don't know who is supposed to be handling this (Wim?), but the
> patch itself looks suspicious.

I asked Tom to look at Maxim's patch and see what it does. Tom was going to look at the patch and
I'm waiting on feedback from him first. (That's why I din't sent it upstream yet).

> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@...cle.com> wrote:
> > -       set_memory_x((unsigned long)bios32_entrypoint, (2 * PAGE_SIZE));
> > +       set_memory_x((unsigned long)bios32_entrypoint & PAGE_MASK, 2);
> 
> If it wasn't page-aligned to begin with, then maybe it needs three pages now?
> 
> > -                               set_memory_x((unsigned long)cru_rom_addr, cru_length);
> > +                               set_memory_x((unsigned long)cru_rom_addr & PAGE_MASK, cru_length >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> 
> Same here. If we align the start address down, we should fix up the
> length. And should we not align the number of pages up?
> 
> In general, a "start/length" conversion to a "page/nr" model needs to be roughly
> 
>    len += start & ~PAGE_MASK;
>    start &= PAGE_MASK;
>    nr_pages = (len + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> 
> to do things right. But I don't know where those magic numbers come
> from. Maybe the "2" is already due to the code possibly traversing a
> page boundary, and has already been fixed up. Somebody who knows the
> driver and the requirements should take a look at this.

Valid comments indeed. Tom please take Linus comments with you when you look at the patch.

Dan: I put you in Cc: also so that you can have a look at it also.

Kind regards,
Wim.


--
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/