linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: kaslr: Reserve size of ARM64_MEMSTART

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: <CAKv+Gu-0JUqihHGQt+YyvUHRTizTOWywXqMaE4RiXOjQ7xi7zA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:51:16 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Yueyi Li <liyueyi@...e.com>
Cc:     "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "markus@...rhumer.com" <markus@...rhumer.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kaslr: Reserve size of ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN in
 linear region

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 04:37, Yueyi Li <liyueyi@...e.com> wrote:
>
> OK, thanks. But seems this mail be ignored, do i need re-sent the patch?
>
> On 2018/12/26 21:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 at 03:30, Yueyi Li <liyueyi@...e.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Ard,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2018/12/24 17:45, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> Does the following change fix your issue as well?
> >>>
> >>> index 9b432d9fcada..9dcf0ff75a11 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> >>> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ void __init arm64_memblock_init(void)
> >>>                    * memory spans, randomize the linear region as well.
> >>>                    */
> >>>                   if (memstart_offset_seed > 0 && range >= ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN) {
> >>> -                       range = range / ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN + 1;
> >>> +                       range /= ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN;
> >>>                           memstart_addr -= ARM64_MEMSTART_ALIGN *
> >>>                                            ((range * memstart_offset_seed) >> 16);
> >>>                   }
> >> Yes, it can fix this also. I just think modify the first *range*
> >> calculation would be easier to grasp, what do you think?
> >>
> > I don't think there is a difference, to be honest, but I will leave it
> > up to the maintainers to decide which approach they prefer.
>

No it has been merged already. It is in v5.0-rc2 I think.