linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 05/10] powerpc/mm: Do early ioremaps from top to bottom on PPC64 too.

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: <1566221500.6f5zxv68dm.astroid@bobo.none>
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 23:42:38 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/10] powerpc/mm: Do early ioremaps from top to bottom
 on PPC64 too.

Christophe Leroy's on August 14, 2019 6:11 am:
> Until vmalloc system is up and running, ioremap basically
> allocates addresses at the border of the IOREMAP area.
> 
> On PPC32, addresses are allocated down from the top of the area
> while on PPC64, addresses are allocated up from the base of the
> area.

This series looks pretty good to me, but I'm not sure about this patch.

It seems like quite a small divergence in terms of code, and it looks
like the final result still has some ifdefs in these functions. Maybe
you could just keep existing behaviour for this cleanup series so it
does not risk triggering some obscure regression? Merging behaviour
could be proposed at the end.

Thanks,
Nick