Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:55:59 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, lasse.collin@...aani.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] x86, boot: kaslr cleanup and 64bit kaslr support * Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote: > >> I will split these chunks up into the correct patches and resend the series. > >> If you get a chance, can you double-check this? > > > > Yes, these changes sounds great. I checked the series you posted, and have to > > say you make them look much better. The change logs are perfect and great code > > refactoring. Just one little bit thing, here: > > > > [kees: rewrote changelog, refactored goto into while, limit 32-bit to 1G] in > > patch [PATCH v5 19/21] x86, KASLR: Add physical address randomization >4G > > > > In i386 KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is kept to be 0x20000000, namely 512M, w/o kaslr > > enabled. So here I guess it's a typo, should be "limit 32-bit to 1G". And what > > I said is wrong about upper limit yesterday, in fact i386 can put kernel in > > [16M, 896M), not 768M. But KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is good enough for i386 for now. > > Ah yeah, thanks. If we do a v6, I'll update the typo. I was going to say "limit > 32-bit to KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE" but it was going to line-wrap. > :P No need to resend, I've fixed the changelog. Thanks, Ingo
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.