linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 1/2] x86: add support for the non-standard protected e820 type

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:	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:12:39 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 1/2] x86: add support for the non-standard
 protected e820 type

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 09:12 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>   :
>> @@ -748,7 +758,7 @@ u64 __init early_reserve_e820(u64 size, u64 align)
>>  /*
>>   * Find the highest page frame number we have available
>>   */
>> -static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type)
>> +static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn)
>>  {
>>       int i;
>>       unsigned long last_pfn = 0;
>> @@ -759,7 +769,11 @@ static unsigned long __init e820_end_pfn(unsigned long limit_pfn, unsigned type)
>>               unsigned long start_pfn;
>>               unsigned long end_pfn;
>>
>> -             if (ei->type != type)
>> +             /*
>> +              * Persistent memory is accounted as ram for purposes of
>> +              * establishing max_pfn and mem_map.
>> +              */
>> +             if (ei->type != E820_RAM && ei->type != E820_PRAM)
>>                       continue;
>
> Should we also delete this code, accounting E820_PRAM as ram, along with
> the deletion of reserve_pmem() in this version?

should revert those end_of_ram change as attached.

View attachment "revert_end_of_ram_change.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1298 bytes)