linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3 v9] x86/mm: Change the examination condition to avoid confusion

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:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:11:45 +0800
From:   lijiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, dyoung@...hat.com, bhe@...hat.com,
        Thomas.Lendacky@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v9] x86/mm: Change the examination condition to avoid
 confusion

在 2019年03月23日 01:51, Borislav Petkov 写道:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 06:33:07PM +0800, Lianbo Jiang wrote:
>> Following the commit <0e4c12b45aa8> ("x86/mm, resource: Use
>> PAGE_KERNEL protection for ioremap of memory pages"),
> 
> The proper commit quotation format is done by adding this to your
> .gitconfig:
> 
> [core]
>         abbrev = 12
> [alias]
>         one = show -s --pretty='format:%h (\"%s\")'
> 
> and then doing:
> 
> $ git one <commit id>
> 
> which will give you
> 
> 0e4c12b45aa8 ("x86/mm, resource: Use PAGE_KERNEL protection for ioremap of memory pages")

Nice. I added them to my .gitconfig. It works. Thank you very much.

> 
>> here it is really checking for the 'IORES_DESC_ACPI_*' values.
> 
> Well, it is not really checking that.

I mean it needs to find all the value of the 'IORES_DESC_ACPI_*' type.

> 
>> Therefore, it is necessary to change the examination condition
>> to avoid confusion.
> 
> What confusion?

As above mentioned, it needs to find all the value of the 'IORES_DESC_ACPI_*'
type, so we should explicitly use the 'IORES_DESC_ACPI_*' type as the check
condition instead of the 'IORES_DESC_NONE'.

Thanks.
Lianbo

> 
> The justification for that change sounds really fishy.
>