linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/24] powerpc/mm: properly set PAGE

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]

Date:   Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:58:10 +0200
From:   LEROY Christophe <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/24] powerpc/mm: properly set PAGE_KERNEL flags in
 ioremap()

Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> a écrit :

> Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> writes:
>
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
>>
>>> Set PAGE_KERNEL directly in the caller and do not rely on a
>>> hack adding PAGE_KERNEL flags when _PAGE_PRESENT is not set.
>>>
>>> As already done for PPC64, use pgprot_cache() helpers instead of
>>> _PAGE_XXX flags in PPC32 ioremap() derived functions.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
>>
>> Something in here is breaking my p5020ds (both 32-bit and 64-bit):
>
> Oh duh.
>
> That's because I didn't take patch 4.
>
> It didn't have any acks, but I guess I'll just merge it rather than
> breaking things.

Yes indeed. Maybe should I have followed it more carrefully to ensure  
it gets an ack.

Thanks
Christophe