Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 May 2016 08:46:27 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86, boot: PUD VA support for physical mapping (x86_64) | From | Thomas Garnier <> |
| |
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.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
| |