linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] sparse

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:   Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:29:28 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
Cc:     steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        jack@...e.cz, jglisse@...hat.com, jrdr.linux@...il.com,
        bhe@...hat.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
        richard.weiyang@...il.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, mingo@...nel.org, osalvador@...hadventures.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] sparse_init rewrite

On Mon,  9 Jul 2018 13:53:09 -0400 Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com> wrote:

> In sparse_init() we allocate two large buffers to temporary hold usemap and
> memmap for the whole machine. However, we can avoid doing that if we
> changed sparse_init() to operated on per-node bases instead of doing it on
> the whole machine beforehand.
> 
> As shown by Baoquan
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180628062857.29658-1-bhe@redhat.com
> 
> The buffers are large enough to cause machine stop to boot on small memory
> systems.
> 
> These patches should be applied on top of Baoquan's work, as
> CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_ALLOC_MEM_MAP_TOGETHER is removed in that work.
> 
> For the ease of review, I split this work so the first patch only adds new
> interfaces, the second patch enables them, and removes the old ones.

This clashes pretty significantly with patches from Baoquan and Oscar:

mm-sparse-make-sparse_init_one_section-void-and-remove-check.patch
mm-sparse-make-sparse_init_one_section-void-and-remove-check-fix.patch
mm-sparse-make-sparse_init_one_section-void-and-remove-check-fix-2.patch
mm-sparse-add-a-static-variable-nr_present_sections.patch
mm-sparsemem-defer-the-ms-section_mem_map-clearing.patch
mm-sparse-add-a-new-parameter-data_unit_size-for-alloc_usemap_and_memmap.patch

Is there duplication of intent here?  Any thoughts on the
prioritization of these efforts?