Changes in v2:
- Add "um: Fix potential integer overflow during physmem setup";
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240913142137.248245-1-tiwei@antgroup.com/
Tiwei Bie (4):
um: Remove the redundant declaration of high_physmem
um: Fix potential integer overflow during physmem setup
um: Re
high_physmem has already been declared in as-layout.h, so there is
no need to declare it explicitly in the .c file again.
While at it, group the declarations of __real_malloc and __real_free
together to make the code slightly more readable.
Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie
---
arch/um/os-Linux/main.c |
Highmem was only supported on UML/i386. And the support has been
removed by commit a98a6d864d3b ("um: Remove broken highmem support").
Remove the leftovers and stop UML from trying to setup highmem when
the sum of physmem_size and iomem_size exceeds max_physmem.
Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie
---
arch
Currently physmem_size is defined as long long but declared locally
as unsigned long long before using it in separate .c files. Make them
match by defining physmem_size as unsigned long long and also move
the declaration to a common header to allow the compiler to check it.
Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bi
This issue happens when the real map size is greater than LONG_MAX,
which can be easily triggered on UML/i386.
Fixes: fe205bdd1321 ("um: Print minimum physical memory requirement")
Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie
---
arch/um/kernel/physmem.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
On 2024/9/16 00:55, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> does that mean we can also drop the 3-level page table support on i386?
> It seems like the two level page table is entirely sufficient on a
> system without high memory (i.e. only 32bit physical addresses).
Good point. I think so too.
Regards,
Hi,
does that mean we can also drop the 3-level page table support on i386?
It seems like the two level page table is entirely sufficient on a
system without high memory (i.e. only 32bit physical addresses).
When I took a look at it for the 4-level page table support on 64 bit I
got a bit confuse
Hi Ard,
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 05:00:42PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Mon, 9 Sept 2024 at 08:51, Mike Rapoport wrote:
...
> > +static void execmem_fill_trapping_insns(void *ptr, size_t size, bool
> > writable)
> > +{
> > + if (execmem_info->fill_trapping_insns)
> > +
