linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] loongarch: drop ranges for definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX

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, 22 Mar 2023 13:03:09 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loongarch: drop ranges for definition of
 ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:17:27AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@...nel.org>
> 
> LoongArch defines insane ranges for ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER allowing
> MAX_ORDER up to 63, which implies maximal contiguous allocation size of
> 2^63 pages.
> 
> Drop bogus definitions of ranges for ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER and leave it a
> simple integer with sensible defaults.
> 
> Users that *really* need to change the value of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
> will be able to do so but they won't be mislead by the bogus ranges.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@...nel.org>

Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov