Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64

2017-07-17 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 17 July 2017 at 15:18, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:20:49PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it >> > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?)

Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64

2017-07-17 Thread gre...@linuxfoundation.org
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:20:49PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it > > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides > > strictly above the kernel's d

Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64

2017-06-20 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides > strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this > is the other way around. For

Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64

2017-06-20 Thread Mark Rutland
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 08:59:00AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides > strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this > is the other

[PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64

2017-06-19 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this is the other way around. For instance, for a 48-bit VA configuration, we have modu