| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:38:14 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Resurect proper handling of maxcpus= kernel option * Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote: > > This will need some test time on 32-bit as that is where this > > represents a material change. ( albeit what matters most is the > > maxcpus=1 distinction - and for that nosmp can be used as well to > > turn off multi-cpu support altogether. So we could do this in > > v2.6.27 as well. ) > > So far we got a couple of reports that it works as expected on 32 > (both laptop and server/desktop). Yes, but the usecase i'm worried about is when say maxcpus=1 was used to _prevent_ an SMP bootup - because the system would not work otherwise. i guess we want to tickle those systems anyway as that case is not supposed to happen (and it can always be totally disabled via nosmp or noapic). So i'm not against your fix/change per se, i just wanted to highlight that it has some impact on existing uses of maxcpus that is outside of your cpu-hotplug usecase. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists