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  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, 6 Nov 2014 12:56:37 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Yinghai Lu <>,,,,
	Steffen Persvold <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Drop redundant memory-block sizing code

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:10:45PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> "As the first check for 64GB or larger memory returns a 2GB memory
> block size in that case, the following check for less than 64GB will
> always

Right, but why isn't there a simple else? Instead, the >64GB case is
looking at totalram_pages but the so-called else case is looking at
max_pfn. Why, what's the difference?

My purely hypothetical suspicion is this thing used to handle some
special case with memory holes where totalram_pages was still < 64GB but
max_pfn was above. I'm looking at this memory block size approximation
downwards which supposedly used to do something at some point, right?

Now, when you remove this, it doesn't do so anymore, potentially
breaking some machines.

Or is this simply unfortunate coding and totalram_pages and max_pfn are

Questions over questions... Maybe it is time for some git log



Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists