linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: remove dummy pages

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]

Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:35:13 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: remove dummy pages

On 07/26/2012 05:20 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:56:15 +0300
> Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Since my comments are better done as a separate patch, I applied all
>> three patches.  Thanks!
> 
> Is this patch really safe for all architectures?
> 
> IS_ERR_VALUE() casts -MAX_ERRNO to unsigned long and then does comparison.
> Isn't it possible to conflict with valid pfns?
> 

See IS_ERR_VALUE():

#define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) unlikely((x) >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO)

The minimal value of the error code is:
0xffff f001 on 32-bit and 0x ffff ffff ffff f001 on 64-bit,
it is fair larger that a valid pfn (for the pfn, the most top of 12 bits
are always 0).

Note, PAE is a special case, but only 64G physical memory is valid,
0xffff f001 is also suitable for that.

--
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/