linux-kernel - Re: n900 in next-20170901

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: <20171110153734.GP28152@atomide.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 07:37:34 -0800
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, pali.rohar@...il.com, sre@...nel.org,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, khilman@...nel.org,
        aaro.koskinen@....fi, ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com,
        patrikbachan@...il.com, serge@...lyn.com, abcloriens@...il.com,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: n900 in next-20170901

* Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> [171110 06:43]:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:23:40PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> [171109 22:19]:
> > > * Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> [171110 03:28]:
> > > > Then I'll follow up on cleaning up save_secure_ram_context later.
> > > 
> > > Here's a better version, the static mapping did not get used.. It
> > > just moved the area so it happened to work. It needs to be set
> > > up as MT_MEMORY_RWX_NONCACHED instead.
> > 
> 
> I see a better version now. Hmm... I guess that it also has the
> problem that I mentioned on first version.
> 
> > And FYI, here's what I currently have for the follow-up patch,
> > but that can wait a bit.
> 
> Okay. So, this patch should be applied on the top of above better version?

Yeah, but we may actually want to combine both patches into a
single patch to avoid the save_secure_ram_context 0xffff translation
limit, see my comments in the first version.

Regards,

Tony