linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86 e820: Introduce memmap=resetusablemap for kdump usage

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:07:19 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, vgoyal@...hat.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86 e820: Introduce memmap=resetusablemap for kdump usage

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:32 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>> Again: Please explain what is bad with this solution.
>>> I cannot see a better and more robust way for kdump other than
>>> reserving the original reserved memory areas as declared by the BIOS.
>>
>> It is bad because it creates more complexity than is needed.
>>
>> The whole point is that what we want is simply to switch type 1 to type
>> X, with the sole exceptions being the areas explicitly reserved for the
>> kdump kernel.
>
> Do you prefer to  "reserveram" way in attached patch?

Hi, Thomas,

Can you please check attached reserveram version on your setup?

If it is ok, i will put it in for-x86-boot patchset and send it to
Peter for v3.9.

Thanks

Yinghai

Download attachment "e820_reserveram_v2.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (2803 bytes)