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  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:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:50:40 -0600
From:   Craig Bergstrom <>
To:     Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <>,
        Sander Eikelenboom <>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <>,
        Fengguang Wu <>,,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        LKP <>
Subject: Re: ce56a86e2a ("x86/mm: Limit mmap() of /dev/mem to valid physical
 addresses"): kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/physaddr.c:79!

Reverting seems like the right approach at the moment.  My apologies
for the breakage so late the in the cycle.

Post-revert, there remains a bug here wherein you can make the system
OOPS if you mmap memory above the 48 bit bus width.  Linus/Ingo, is
there something in particular that you'd like to see before pulling in
a check on the bus width (or some other fix)?  Based on Linus'
comment, the bus width check smells like something that should cook
for a while before pulling into mainline.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
>> Well, 'mem=2048M' shouldn't really limit device memory, it's supposed to limit
>> (trim) 'RAM' and not much else.
> Agreed. You should very much be able to map in IO memory or whatever
> above the 2G address even if the high_memory itself might be limited
> to 2GB.
> So I think that commit ce56a86e2ade ("x86/mm: Limit mmap() of /dev/mem
> to valid physical addresses") is wrong, in that "high_memory" is very
> much the wrong thing to test.
> The memory mapping limit might validly be something like
>    1ull << boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits
> or similar, but for now I suspect that the right thing to do is to
> revert. I'm not convinced that our "x86_phys_bits" value is guaranteed
> to be always right, since I think we mainlyjust use it for showing
> things, rather than have lots of code that depends on it.
> Ingo?
>                Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists