linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/4] arm64: Correct type for PUD macros

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: <20180116111740.tn6qy7yjs2d5ltx6@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:17:40 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
Cc:     kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, suzuki.poulose@....com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] arm64: Correct type for PUD macros

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 07:07:26PM +0000, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> The PUD macros (PUD_TABLE_BIT, PUD_TYPE_MASK, PUD_TYPE_SECT) use the
> pgdval_t even when pudval_t is available. Even though the underlying
> type for both (u64) is the same it is confusing and may lead to issues
> in the future.
> 
> Fix this by using pudval_t to define the PUD_* macros.
> 
> Fixes: 084bd29810a56 ("ARM64: mm: HugeTLB support.")
> Fixes: 206a2a73a62d3 ("arm64: mm: Create gigabyte kernel logical mappings where possible")
> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>

I queued this patch. I'll leave the KVM bits to Marc/Christoffer.

-- 
Catalin