linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 5/6] arm64: Use __pa_symbol for

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: <20161114181937.GG3096@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:19:38 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 5/6] arm64: Use __pa_symbol for _end

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:56:42PM -0600, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > On 11/02/2016 04:52 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:00:53PM -0600, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > >>
> > >>__pa_symbol is technically the marco that should be used for kernel
> > >>symbols. Switch to this as a pre-requisite for DEBUG_VIRTUAL.
> > >
> > >Nit: s/marco/macro/
> > >
> > >I see there are some other uses of __pa() that look like they could/should be
> > >__pa_symbol(), e.g. in mark_rodata_ro().
> > >
> > >I guess strictly speaking those need to be updated to? Or is there a reason
> > >that we should not?
> > 
> > If the concept of __pa_symbol is okay then yes I think all uses of __pa
> > should eventually be converted for consistency and debugging.
> 
> I have no strong feelings either way about __pa_symbol(); I'm not clear on what
> the purpose of __pa_symbol() is specifically, but I'm happy even if it's just
> for consistency with other architectures.

At a quick grep, it seems to only be used by mips and x86 and a single
place in mm/memblock.c.

Since we haven't seen any issues on arm/arm64 without this macro, can we
not just continue to use __pa()?

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin