[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJcbSZGDzTMQYrzFKN86t3=MzSfFzs7+6UYOZufQEqZ2ie+hEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 08:46:27 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@...il.com>, Alexander Popov <alpopov@...ecurity.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86, boot: PUD VA support for physical mapping (x86_64)
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 02:41 PM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> Minor change that allows early boot physical mapping of PUD level virtual
>> addresses. This change prepares usage of different virtual addresses for
>> KASLR memory randomization. It has no impact on default usage.
> ...
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
>> index 89d9747..6adfbce 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
>> @@ -526,10 +526,10 @@ phys_pud_init(pud_t *pud_page, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>> {
>> unsigned long pages = 0, next;
>> unsigned long last_map_addr = end;
>> - int i = pud_index(addr);
>> + int i = pud_index((unsigned long)__va(addr));
>>
>> for (; i < PTRS_PER_PUD; i++, addr = next) {
>> - pud_t *pud = pud_page + pud_index(addr);
>> + pud_t *pud = pud_page + pud_index((unsigned long)__va(addr));
>> pmd_t *pmd;
>> pgprot_t prot = PAGE_KERNEL;
>
> pud_index() is supposed to take a virtual address. We were passing a
> physical address in here, and it all just worked because PAGE_OFFSET is
> PUD-aligned. Now that you are moving PAGE_OFFSET around a bit and not
> PUD-aligning it, this breaks. Right?
>
> Could you spell this out a bit more the changelog?
Sure, will do on next iteration.
Thanks,
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
