linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c

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]

Message-ID: <20080827175152.GA27491@shareable.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:51:53 +0100
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...mix.at>
Cc:	Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected

Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > 32MB no-MMU ARM boards which people run new things and attach new
> > devices to rather often - without making new hardware.  Volume's too
> > low per individual application to get new hardware designed and made.
> 
> Yes, you may have several products on the same hardware with somewhat
> differing requirements (or not). But that is much less than a general
> purpose system IMHO.

It is, but the idea that small embedded systems go through a 'all
components are known, drivers are known, test and if it passes it's
shippable' does not always apply.

> > I'm seriously thinking of forwarding porting the 4 year old firmware
> > from 2.4.26 to 2.6.current, just to get new drivers and capabilities.
> 
> That sounds reasonable (and I never meant maintaining the old system
> infinitely.

Sounds reasonable, but it's vetoed for anticipated time and cost,
compared with backporting on demand.  Fair enough, since 2.6.current
doesn't support ARM no-MMU last I heard ('soon'?).

On the other hand, the 2.6 anti-fragmentation patches, including
latest SLUB stuff, ironically meant to help big machines, sound really
appealing for my current problem and totally unrealistic to
backport...

> ACK. We avoid MMU-less hardware too - especially since there is enough
> hardware with a MMU around.

I can't emphasise enough how much difference MMU makes to Linux userspace.

It's practically: MMU = standard Linux (with less RAM), have everything.
No-MMU = lots of familiar 'Linux' things not available or break.

-- Jamie
--
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/