linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend 0/3] mm: allow arch to override lowmem_page

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: <20160421165138.a57be293ec370d5ea014e1ae@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:51:38 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, lftan@...era.com,
	jonas@...thpole.se, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend 0/3] mm: allow arch to override
 lowmem_page_address

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:04:54 +0200 Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:

> These patches allow the arch to define the page_to_virt() conversion that
> is used in lowmem_page_address(). This is desirable for arm64, where this
> conversion is trivial when CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP is enabled, while
> breaking it up into __va(PFN_PHYS(page_to_pfn(page))), as is done currently
> in lowmem_page_address(), will force the use of a virt-to-phys() conversion
> and back again, which always involves a memory access on arm64, since the
> start of physical memory is not a compile time constant.
> 
> I have split off these patches from my series 'arm64: optimize virt_to_page
> and page_address' which I sent out 3 weeks ago, and resending them in the
> hope that they can be picked up (with Will's ack on #3) to be merged via
> the mm tree.
> 
> I have cc'ed the nios2 and openrisc maintainers on previous versions, and
> cc'ing them again now. I have dropped both of the arch specific mailing
> lists, since one is defunct and the other is subscriber only.
> 
> Andrew, is this something you would be pulling to pick up (assuming that you
> agree with the contents)? Thanks.

Looks OK to me and apart from the trivial openrisc/nios2 changes it's
obviously a no-op for all-but-arm.  So I suggest you include these
patches in the appropriate arm tree.

Acked-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>