linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: provide a fallback for PAGE_KERNEL

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180510012426.GA27853@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 01:24:26 +0000
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: provide a fallback for PAGE_KERNEL_RO for
 architectures

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 03:11:13PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:08:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Luis,
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > Some architectures do not define PAGE_KERNEL_RO, best we can do
> > > for them is to provide a fallback onto PAGE_KERNEL. Remove the
> > > hack from the firmware loader and move it onto the asm-generic
> > > header, and document while at it the affected architectures
> > > which do not have a PAGE_KERNEL_RO:
> > >
> > >   o alpha
> > >   o ia64
> > >   o m68k
> > >   o mips
> > >   o sparc64
> > >   o sparc
> > >
> > > Blessed-by: 0-day
> > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> > 
> > I believe the "best we can do" is to add the missing definitions for the
> > architectures where the hardware does support it?
> 
> True, but we cannot wait for every architecture to implement a feature to then
> such generics upstream, 

Come to think of it your point was the wording. I changed it to not be as misleading.

  Luis