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]

Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 03:37:37 +0000
From:   Yueyi Li <liyueyi@...e.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     "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

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.