linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi

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]

Message-ID: <44D3041E.501@kolumbus.fi>
Date:	Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:23:58 +0300
From:	Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...umbus.fi>
To:	kmannth@...ibm.com
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lhms-devel <lhms-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	y-goto@...fujitsu.com, andrew <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi

keith mannthey wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:48 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:23:46 -0700
>> keith mannthey <kmannth@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>>>>> What keeps 0xa0000000 to 0xa1000000 from being re-onlined by a bad call
>>>>> to add_memory?
>>>>>           
>>>> Usual sparsemem's add_memory() checks whether there are sections in
>>>> sparse_add_one_section(). then add_pages() returns -EEXIST (nothing to do).
>>>> And ioresouce collision check will finally find collision because 0-0xbffffff
>>>> resource will conflict with 0xa0000000 to 0xa10000000 area.
>>>> But, x86_64 's (not sparsemem) add_pages() doen't do collision check, so it panics.
>>>>         
>>> I have paniced with your 5 patches while doing SPARSMEM....  I think
>>> your 6th patch address the issues I was seeing.  
>>>
>>>       
>
>
> with the 6 patches things work as expected.  It is nice to have the
> sysfs devices online the correct amount of memory.  
>
> I was broken without this patch because invalid add_memory calls are
> made on by box (yet another issue) during boot. 
>
> I will build my patch set on top of your 6 patches. 
>
> Thanks,
>   Keith 
>
>   
Keith, are you working on the reserve hotadd case? It looks really 
broken, at the same time we both assume the hot add region contains RAM 
per e820 (use of reserve_bootmem_node()) and at the same time in other 
places (in reserve_hotadd()) that it may not contain RAM. And 
nodes_cover_memory() is broken no matter what we assume.


--Mika

-
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/