lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Word-at-a-time dcache name accesses (was Re: .. anybody know of any filesystems that depend on the exact VFS 'namehash' implementation?)
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>
> Note that does mean we need a guard page after each and every
> discontiguous RAM range, not just the last one.  Raising that issue
> since we have had serious bugs in that area in the past.

Are you sure? I didn't think we even *mapped* things at that granularity.

We only really need a guard page at the end of an actual end-of-ram
where we no longer have page tables and/or could hit device space.

Which in practice never actually is an issue on PC's - we already
guard against BIOS usage just under the 0xA0000 address, and in
practice there are always ACPI tables at the end of RAM (and on x86-32
we can't use highmem for filenames anyway, so that takes away *those*
cases).

Which is why I think that for testing purposes we don't even need to
care - it's basically a "can't happen" (not to mention that nobody
actually uses PATH_MAX pathames).

For robustness and actual deployment, I do think that yes, we do want
to make it an explicit rule.

Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-03 02:15    [W:0.056 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site