linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] riscv: Add support for 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]

Message-ID: <0848ebec-3283-bb78-ace4-fd15360b41fe@web.de>
Date:   Sat, 15 Feb 2020 15:23:35 +0100
From:   Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
To:     Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] riscv: Add support for mem=

On 15.02.20 14:44, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 15.02.20 г. 13:49 ч., Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>>
>> This sets a memory limit provided via mem=3D on the command line,
>> analogously to many other architectures.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>> =2D--
>>   arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> index 965a8cf4829c..aec39a56d6cf 100644
>> =2D-- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> @@ -118,6 +118,23 @@ static void __init setup_initrd(void)
>>   }
>>   #endif /* CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD */
>>
>> +static phys_addr_t memory_limit =3D PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
>
> 3d is the ascii code for =, meaning your client is somehow br0ken?

The client is called git send-email, and I just checked what was passed
to it - all fine. It must be my beloved freemail provider that enables
quoted-printable encoding for this series (interestingly not for another
one I sent to a different community today). I've resent the same patch
files to both corporate and private providers, and only the latter shows
this behavior. Sigh.

IIRC, git am processes this correctly, but I can resent via the
corporate server as well, whatever is preferred.

Thanks,
Jan