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:   Fri, 4 Jan 2019 17:09:29 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        yinghai@...nel.org, vgoyal@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] mm/memblock: extend the limit inferior of
 bottom-up after parsing hotplug attr

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 10:47:06AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 07:05:38PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > I agree that currently the bottom-up allocation after the kernel text has
> > issues with KASLR. But this issues are not necessarily related to the
> > memory hotplug. Even with a single memory node, a bottom-up allocation will
> > fail if KASLR would put the kernel near the end of node0.
> > 
> > What I am trying to understand is whether there is a fundamental reason to
> > prevent allocations from [0, kernel_start)?
> > 
> > Maybe Tejun can recall why he suggested to start bottom-up allocations from
> > kernel_end.
> 
> That's from 79442ed189ac ("mm/memblock.c: introduce bottom-up
> allocation mode").  I wasn't involved in that patch, so no idea why
> the restrictions were added, but FWIW it doesn't seem necessary to me.

I should have added the reference [1] at the first place :)
Thanks!

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20130904192215.GG26609@mtj.dyndns.org/
 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ