[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170308101750.GD6570@x1>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:17:50 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, thgarnie@...gle.com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Correct a tiny mistake in code comment
On 03/08/17 at 10:35am, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:09:55PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Yes, it looks better. I can repost with this change. Thanks.
>
> No it doesn't:
All right, I will just update the code comment. Just back ported kaslr
to our OS product, people reviewed and found the upper boundary of kaslr
mm region is EFI_VA_START, that's not correct, it has to be corrected
firstly in upstream. Then found the confusion in code comment.
Change or keep it, both is fine to me.
Thanks!
>
> #define EFI_VA_START ( -4 * (_AC(1, UL) << 30))
> #define EFI_VA_END (-68 * (_AC(1, UL) << 30))
>
> That's -4G (the shift by 30) and -68G, respectively.
>
> > > #define EFI_VA_START _AC(0xfffffffeffffffff, UL)
> > > #define EFI_VA_END _AC(0xffffffef00000000, UL)
>
> That is something which I need to type into a calculator first.
>
> Can you guys point your attention to something which is really broken
> and stop wasting your time? And there's enough really broken crap left
> and right...
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists