linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86, mm: make split_mem

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:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:08:43 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.or
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86, mm: make split_mem_range() more easy to read

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 03:29:04PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> My question is to the for loop.
> 
> For example, we have a range
> 
>        +--+---------+-----------------------+
>        ^ 128M       1G                      2G
>    128M - 4K
> 
> If my understanding is correct, the original behavior will split this into
> three ranges:
> 
>    4K size: [128M - 4K, 128M]
>    2M size: [128M, 1G]
>    1G size: [1G, 2G]
> 
> While after your change, it will split this into two ranges:
> 
>    ?? size: [128M - 4K, 1G]
>    2M size: [1G, 2G]
>
> The question mark here is because you leave the page_size_mask unchanged in
> this case.
> 
> Is my understanding correct? Or I missed something?

Yes. You misread mr_try_map().

Thanks,

	tglx