linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] ARM: change vmalloc_min to vmalloc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8q526rs-853n-5q80-r9pn-87sso759r13@syhkavp.arg>
Date:   Tue, 18 May 2021 18:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
cc:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@...driver.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hailong liu <carver4lio@....com>,
        Tian Tao <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ARM: change vmalloc_min to vmalloc_start

On Tue, 18 May 2021, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> On Wed, 19 May 2021, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:15 PM Russell King (Oracle)
> > <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Change the current vmalloc_min, which is supposed to be the lowest
> > > address of vmalloc space including the VMALLOC_OFFSET, to vmalloc_start
> > > which does not include VMALLOC_OFFSET.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > 
> > > +static unsigned long __initdata vmalloc_start = VMALLOC_END - (240 << 20);
> > 
> > When I first read this it took me some time to figure out what was
> > going on here, so if you have time, please fold in a comment
> > with some explanation of that (240 << 20) thing, in some blog
> > post I described it as "an interesting way to write 0x0f000000"
> > but I suppose commit 0536bdf33faf chose this way for a
> > specific reason? (Paging Nico if he can explain it.)
> 
> That's an alternative (and deprecated) way to write MB(240).

And it seems that MB() isn't globally defined either. Oh well.


Nicolas