linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good

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, 4 Oct 2012 14:21:44 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
>> So could use ram under 1M to map that page table at first.
>
> Could or does this patch do it? And why 1MB?

can you or stefano could test attached patch on xen ?

that will map the page table buffer that will be used.

under 1M, still 4k there, so there will be no page table around 512M.

>>
>> so that will make it xen happy ?
>
> The issues that Xen faces are purely due to the fact that they
> must be RO when they are in use. I believe (and without actually
> checking it just to make sure) that it does not matter where
> the page-tables are located. But with the current generic code
> the location is quite linear: it starts with pgt_buf_start and
> goes up to pgt_buf_top. So how would this patch move the location
> of the page-table to be under 1MB?

just page table buf's page table.

Thanks

Yinghai

Download attachment "fix_xen_with_init_mapping.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (2263 bytes)