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:   Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:30:56 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <>
CC:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Jason Cooper <>,
        Haojian Zhuang <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        linux-arm-kernel <>,
        linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: LPAE: use phys_addr_t instead of unsigned long
 in outercache hooks

On 2020/12/26 20:13, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 07:44:58PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> The outercache of some Hisilicon SOCs support physical addresses wider
>> than 32-bits. The unsigned long datatype is not sufficient for mapping
>> physical addresses >= 4GB. The commit ad6b9c9d78b9 ("ARM: 6671/1: LPAE:
>> use phys_addr_t instead of unsigned long in outercache functions") has
>> already modified the outercache functions. But the parameters of the
>> outercache hooks are not changed. This patch use phys_addr_t instead of
>> unsigned long in outercache hooks: inv_range, clean_range, flush_range.
>> To ensure the outercache that does not support LPAE works properly, do
>> cast phys_addr_t to unsigned long by adding a middle-tier function.
> Please don't do that. The cast can be done inside the L2 functions
> themselves without needing all these additional functions.

OK. At first, I wanted to fit in like this:

-static void l2c220_inv_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+static void l2c220_inv_range(phys_addr_t lpae_start, phys_addr_t lpae_end)
+  unsigned long start = lpae_start;
+  unsigned long end = lpae_end;

> We probably ought to also add some protection against addresses > 4GB,
> although these are hot paths, so we don't want to add tests in these
> functions. Maybe instead checking whether the system has memory above
> 4GB while the L2 cache is being initialised would be a good idea?

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand what you meant. Currently, the
biggest problem is the compilation problem. The sizeof(long) may be
32, and the 64-bit physical address cannot be transferred from outcache
functions to outcache hooks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists