On 04/06/19 at 06:43am, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 09:51:19AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > It's KASLR happened in kernel_randomize_memory() of arch/x86/mm/kaslr.c . > > What is "KASLR happened in"? This doesn't make any sense. When you look > at that function, there's a comment above it: > > /* Initialize base and padding for each memory region randomized with KASLR */ > > Do you mean, that, per chance? > > > In fact, I don't know how to call it. Previously, I wrote it as mm > > KASLR, to distinguish from KASLR during kernel decompression. Ingo > > blamed the name, > > Of course he did, because it didn't make any sense to him either. > > > so I changed it to memory region KASLR. Seems Thomas > > Garnier called it KASLR for kernel memory regions in his original KASLR > > adding patch. May I call it 'KASLR for kernel memory regions', or 'KASLR > > for memory regions'? > > So you're fixing kaslr_regions[0].size_tb. It's base gets initialized to > page_offset_base. > > Now, if you look at > > Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt > > it says there: > > ffff888000000000 | -119.5 TB | ffffc87fffffffff | 64 TB | direct mapping > of all physical memory (page_offset_base) > > so that is the direct mapping memory region of all physical memory. > > Now, you're apparently fixing its size. > > Am I making sense and are you catching my drift?
Yes, makes sense. I will make it more specific, and use kernel_randomize_memory() instead to indicate the place where code issue is found out. Thanks. > > You need to explain what you change in your commit messages in > *understandable* english so that reviewer/committer or even a person > who's not deeply involved in KASLR inner workings, can at least get an > idea about what the commit message is talking about. > > If you come up with strange constructs like "memory region KASLR" or > "KASLR happened in" or "mm KASLR" which only make sense in your head, > you're not doing anyone any favour. > > Commit messages need to be very understandable when someone is looking > at them months or even years from now. And you need to restrain yourself > when you write them. You will appreciate that the first time you have to > do git archeology, dig out an ancient commit and wonder why we did it > this way. > > Because we didn't document as good in previous years and our commits > from the past suck big time. > > Thanks! > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
