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  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:   Fri, 1 May 2020 08:35:52 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Christian Koenig <>,
        Huang Rui <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <>,
        Max Filippov <>,
        Paul Mackerras <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Helge Deller <>,,, Ingo Molnar <>,,,
        Borislav Petkov <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Dan Williams <>,,
        Chris Zankel <>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <>,,,,
        "David S. Miller" <>
Subject: Re: sparc-related comment, to Re: [PATCH V1 07/10] arch/kmap: Ensure
 kmap_prot visibility

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 01:44:46AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > --- a/arch/sparc/mm/highmem.c
> > +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/highmem.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> >  #include <asm/vaddrs.h>
> >  
> >  pgprot_t kmap_prot;
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmap_prot);
> Btw, I don't see why sparc needs this as a variable, as there is just
> a single assignment to it.

Because sparc uses non-standard defines which I'm not familiar with.

        kmap_prot = __pgprot(SRMMU_ET_PTE | SRMMU_PRIV | SRMMU_CACHE);

SRMMU_ET_PTE and friends are defined in 


Since I can't readily test sparc this was easier to put out than let 0-day
crank on the entire series checking if including that header in the common
header chain would be an issue.

> If sparc is sorted out we can always make it a define, and use a define
> for kmap_prot that defaults to PAGE_KERNEL, avoiding a little
> more duplication.

Agreed.  But it seems easier as a follow up (for me with 0-day).  Perhaps
someone from sparc can weigh in on the specifics of those defines and why they
are different from the normal ones?  Or even provide a follow on patch?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists