linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 08/25] powerpc/8xx: Map IMMR area with 512k page at a fixed address

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:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:46:40 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Scott Wood' <scottwood@...escale.com>
CC:	'Christophe Leroy' <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"Michael Ellerman" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 08/25] powerpc/8xx: Map IMMR area with 512k page at a
 fixed address

From: Scott Wood
> Sent: 24 September 2015 21:14
> > Isn't this a more general problem?
> >
> > If there are multiple remap requests for the same physical page
> > shouldn't the kernel be just increasing a reference count somewhere
> > and returning address in the same virtual page?
> > This should probably happen regardless of the address.
> > I presume it must be done for cacheable mappings.
> 
> Why would you assume that?

Because 'really horrid (tm)' things happen on some cache
architectures if you map the same physical address to
multiple virtual addresses.

	David