linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64

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: <20170717141840.GA16198@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:18:40 +0200
From:   "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:20:49PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it
> > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides
> > strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this
> > is the other way around. For instance, for a 48-bit VA configuration,
> > we have
> >
> >   modules : 0xffff000000000000 - 0xffff000008000000   (   128 MB)
> >   vmalloc : 0xffff000008000000 - 0xffff7dffbfff0000   (129022 GB)
> >   ...
> >   vmemmap : 0xffff7e0000000000 - 0xffff800000000000   (  2048 GB maximum)
> >             0xffff7e0000000000 - 0xffff7e0003ff0000   (    63 MB actual)
> >   memory  : 0xffff800000000000 - 0xffff8000ffc00000   (  4092 MB)
> >
> > This has mostly gone unnoticed until now, but it does appear that it
> > breaks an assumption in the kcore
> 
> s/kcore/kmem/

v4?  :)