linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000

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, 29 Jan 2015 15:40:27 +0000
From:	Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
To:	"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000

On 29/01/15 15:32, Ong, Boon Leong wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bryan O'Donoghue [mailto:pure.logic@...us-software.ie]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:22 PM
>> To: Ong, Boon Leong
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner; Ingo Molnar; H. Peter Anvin; x86@...nel.org;
>> dvhart@...radead.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Andy Shevchenko; Ingo
>> Molnar
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000
>>
>> On 29/01/15 13:47, Ong, Boon Leong wrote:
>>> Bryan,
>>>
>>> Once you have the next revision ready, I would like to test it on my end across
>> both Galileo Gen v1 & v2.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> BL
>>
>> Andy/BL - thanks for taking the time to test.
>>
>> I may end up dropping the imr_del_range() tests based on index as a result of
>> changing the external interface as suggested by Ingo.
> It would be nice to have two variants (1) index based & (2) address based.

Understood. The direction from Ingo was to have address based external 
interface imr_del_range() and support an index based internal 
imr_clear() - internally.

So - in order to get test coverage - I'll move the self-test code back 
into the main IMR code

Not as pretty that way - but better coverage :)
--
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/