On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:48 AM Dave Young wrote:
>
> On 02/06/19 at 08:08pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > On 02/05/19 at 09:15am, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:30:16PM -0700, Jerry Hoemann wrote:
> > > > Is your objection only to the second fallback of allocating
> > > > memory
Hi Kazu,
On 02/04/2019 09:34 PM, Kazuhito Hagio wrote:
On 1/30/2019 8:48 PM, Dave Young wrote:
+ more people
On 01/30/19 at 05:53pm, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
With ARMv8.2-LVA and LPA architecture extensions, arm64 hardware which
supports these extensions can support upto 52-bit virtual and 52-bit
Hi Robin,
On 02/04/2019 09:01 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 04/02/2019 14:35, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
[...]
Also hardcoding the PTE calculation to use the high address bit mask
always will break the backward compatibility with older kernels
(which don't support 52-bit address space extensions).
N
Hi Bhupesh,
On 2/7/2019 2:52 PM, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> With ARMv8.2-LVA architecture extension availability, arm64 hardware
> which supports this extension can support upto 52-bit virtual
> addresses. It is specially useful for having a 52-bit user-space virtual
> address space while the kernel
On 02/06/19 at 08:08pm, Dave Young wrote:
> On 02/05/19 at 09:15am, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:30:16PM -0700, Jerry Hoemann wrote:
> > > Is your objection only to the second fallback of allocating
> > > memory above >= 4GB? Or are you objecting to allocating from
> > >
