linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/uapi for 3.8

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: <CA+55aFwxtt2Rs7dJt_icCsH5QUzrV_UaATQ3aJQY2KGH+anc3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:37:02 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/uapi for 3.8

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've reverted the commit.
>
> more than that, 3 commits just after that commit should be reverted at
> the same time.
> they all depend on that commit.

Thanks for pointing that out, and just to make sure I verified that on
my Macbook Air which does use EFI. It was broken by the single revert,
and fixed by the additional three reverts.

Sadly:

> and first checking of that commit, it would have problem with system
> more than 512g ...

That particular bug isn't the cause for my non-EFI problems, since I
don't have that kind of memory..

So there is something else going on in addition to the bug you found.
But good eye.

Anybody see anything else?

And why do we have to call the get-time calls so early? Couldn't we
move them later and avoid all the crazy "let's create silly magical
page tables just for the idiotic EFI problems".

And while I'm asking, why the f*ck did Intel do that crazy EFI thing
in the first place again?

              Linus
--
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/