[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [git pull] core, x86: make LIST_POISON less deadly

* Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > + hex
> > + default 0 if X86_32
> > + default 0xffffc10000000000 if X86_64
> This looks like a singularly bad pointer value on x86-64.
> Why not pick something that is *guaranteed* to fault? The above looks
> like any future setup that supports 41 bits of addressing and has
> extended the page tables (yes, it will happen eventually) will find
> that to be a perfectly valid address?
> It's also visually confusing, since it's visually very close to a real
> kernel pointer too.
> Grr.
> Why not use something sane like 0xdead000000000000, which has the high
> bit set but very fundamentally isn't a valid pointer, and never will
> be? And which is a *lot* more visually obvious too!

initially i suggested that too - but such addresses raise a #GP instead
of a page fault so their decoding is a bit harder.

We dont do any instruction decoding in #GP handlers to figure out what
happened, while in the pagefault case we know which address faulted,

Perhaps we could try to make #GP handlers a bit more informative -
although decoding instructions will make things a bit more fragile

Perhaps make it 0xffffcdead0000000 ?

in any case, please ignore this topic until it's all worked out - no
other topics depend on this one so it can be skipped safely.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-14 17:15    [W:0.066 / U:2.304 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site