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, 9 Nov 2017 11:44:21 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>,
        Florian Weimer <>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,, linux-mm <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,, Ingo Molnar <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: POWER: Unexpected fault when writing to brk-allocated memory

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:15:26AM +1100, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> So these semantics are what we're going with? Anything that does mmap() is
> guaranteed of getting a 47-bit pointer and it can use the top 17 bits for
> itself? Is intended to be cross-platform or just x86 and power specific?

It is x86 and powerpc specific.  The arm64 people have apparently stumbled
across apps that expect to be able to use bit 48 for their own purposes.
And their address space is 48 bit by default.  Oops.

> Also, this may follow from deduction from 1-3, but for explicit
> specification in man page:
> 4) To get an unspecified allocation with the largest possible address range,
> we pass in -1 for mmap hint.
> Are we allowing 8 bits bits of unused address in this case, or must the
> app not assume anything about number of bits used?

Maybe document it as: "If the app wants to use the top N bits of addresses
for its own purposes, pass in (~0UL >> N) as the mmap hint."  ?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists