linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce init_memory

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:45:05 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce init_memory_mapping for 32bit


* Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> so could use mem below max_low_pfn as early. could move several
> >> function more early instead of waiting after paging_init including
> >> moving relocate_initrd early, and kva related early done in
> >> initmem_init
> >
> > applied to tip/x86/setup-memory - thanks Yinghai.
> >
> > a sidenote:
> >
> >>  6 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
> >
> > this patch is too large - if it causes any problems it will not be very
> > easy to figure out which exact change caused the problems.
> >
> > Lets hope it goes all fine - but in the future lets try doing
> > more+smaller patches, especially if they change some known-dangerous
> > area of the kernel.
> >
> > For example here a better splitup would have been to do 5 or more
> > patches:
> >
> >  1) first introduce init_memory_mapping() [but dont use it anywhere]
> >  2) add the init_memory_mapping() call to setup_arch()
> >  3) move remap_numa_kva()
> >  4) move relocate_initrd()
> >  5) remove the now unnecessary setup from paging_init()
> >
> > ... or something like that. The point is to manage risk: if there's
> > multiple problem areas that a change is touching, try to isolate them
> > from each other and introduce the change gradually.
> >
> > The end result is still exactly the same, but much more
> > reviewable/debuggable/bisectable.
> 
> split into 3 patches, please use them to replace the old one if you 
> like.

i've applied them to tip/x86/setup-memory, replacing the larger patch - 
thanks Yinghai.

	Ingo
--
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/