linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Small Xen bugfixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:08:09 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	"Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	Vasiliy G Tolstov <v.tolstov@...fip.ru>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Small Xen bugfixes

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
>    * fix dom0 boot on systems whose E820 doesn't completely cover the
>      ISA address space.  This fixes a crash on a Dell R310.

Hmm. This clashes with my current tree.

And that conflict is trivial to fix up, but the thing is, I think the
patch that comes from your tree is worse than what is already there.

Why is that simple unconditional

    e820_add_region(ISA_START_ADDRESS, ISA_END_ADDRESS - ISA_START_ADDRESS,
           E820_RESERVED);

not just always the right thing? Why do you have a separate hack for
dom0 in xen_release_chunk() instead? That just looks bogus.

The normal logic we use on PC's is to just always reserve the low 64kB
of memory, and the whole ISA space. Why doesn't Xen just do the same?

                          Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/