linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Assorted fixes for RV32

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:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 21:09:36 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>
CC:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>, ardb@...nel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, rppt@...nel.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, mick@....forth.gr
Subject:     Re: [PATCH 0/4] Assorted fixes for RV32

On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 01:26:48 PST (-0800), Atish Patra wrote:
> This series fixes various issues observed in latest kernel on RV32.
> The first two patches fixes an resource tree introduced in 5.11-rc1
> while the last two fixes the case where 2GB physical memory is used
> on RV32.
>
> There are may be better way to fix the issue pointed out in PATCH 3
> as it seems a generic kernel issue where kernel pointers can not use
> last 4k of addressable memory. I am open to other better alternate
> suggestions.
>
> Atish Patra (4):
> RISC-V: Do not allocate memblock while iterating reserved memblocks
> RISC-V: Set current memblock limit
> RISC-V: Fix L1_CACHE_BYTES for RV32
> RISC-V: Fix maximum allowed phsyical memory for RV32
>
> arch/riscv/Kconfig             |  6 ++++--
> arch/riscv/include/asm/cache.h |  4 ++++
> arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c      | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
> arch/riscv/mm/init.c           | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> 4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

I took all of them but that L1_CACHE_BYTES one, which I had a comment on.
Thanks!