linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd

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:	Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:45:55 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei.yes@...il.com>
Cc:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	robert.moore@...el.com, lv.zheng@...el.com, rjw@...k.pl,
	lenb@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, trenn@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org,
	jiang.liu@...wei.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org, mina86@...a86.com,
	gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com,
	lwoodman@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
	prarit@...hat.com, zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com,
	yanghy@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd_override() earlier.

Hello,

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:39:53AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> What do you mean by "earlyboot"? And also in your previous mail, I am also
> a little confused by what you said "the very first stage of boot". Does
> this mean the stage we are in head_32 or head64.c?

Mostly referring to the state where we don't have basic environment
set up yet including page tables.

> If so, could we just do something just as Yinghai did before, that is, Split
> acpi_override into 2 parts: find and copy. And in "earlyboot", we just do
> the find, and I think that is less of risk. Or we can just do ACPI override
> earlier in setup_arch(), not pulling this process that early during boot?

But *WHY*?  It doesn't really buy us anything substantial.  What are
you trying to achieve here?  "Making ACPI info available early" can't
be a goal in itself and the two benefits cited in this thread seem
pretty dubious to me.  Why are you guys trying to push this
convolution when it doesn't bring any substantial gain?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/