linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/20] powerpc/8xx: Fix size given to set_huge_pte

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: <87zfsk2dnu.fsf@mail.lhotse>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 10:48:21 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Oscar Salvador
 <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jason Gunthorpe
 <jgg@...dia.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Nicholas Piggin
 <npiggin@...il.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
 "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/20] powerpc/8xx: Fix size given to
 set_huge_pte_at()

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> writes:
> Hi Oscar, hi Michael,
>
> Le 20/05/2024 à 11:14, Oscar Salvador a écrit :
>> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 09:00:00PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> set_huge_pte_at() expects the real page size, not the psize which is
>> 
>> "expects the size of the huge page" sounds bettter?
>
> Parameter 'pzize' already provides the size of the hugepage, but not in 
> the way set_huge_pte_at() expects it.
>
> psize has one of the values defined by MMU_PAGE_XXX macros defined in 
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu.h while set_huge_pte_at() expects the size 
> as a value.
>
>> 
>>> the index of the page definition in table mmu_psize_defs[]
>>>
>>> Fixes: 935d4f0c6dc8 ("mm: hugetlb: add huge page size param to set_huge_pte_at()")
>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
>> 
>> AFAICS, this fixup is not related to the series, right? (yes, you will
>> the parameter later)
>> I would have it at the very beginning of the series.
>
> You are right, I should have submitted it separately.
>
> Michael can you take it as a fix for 6.10 ?

Yeah I can. Does it actually cause a bug at runtime (I assume so)?

cheers