[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b170af450808290313x574b4561i3048ffca3e4da197@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:13:34 +0200
From: "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@...il.com>
To: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Alan Jenkins" <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
"Hugh Dickens" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: check for and defend against BIOS memory corruption
Out of current discussion I tried using s2ram on patched kernel (I did
not try s2ram earlier, my problem was (un)plugging HDMI - some ACPI
code probably).
Corruption output is quite huge, I attached it to bug report:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11237
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=17526
I do not know much about current discussion and fact if checking for
corruption should be enabled by default.
However, please note that end-user will not able to diagnose that
Linux doesn't work on his machine because of less-or-more broken BIOS.
He will not get to know that he needs to enable
bios_corruption_check=1 and edit grub to make it default.
I understand that disabling chunk of RAM on every, even not affected,
machine is far from perfect, but we have to remember about not
advanced end-users.
--
Rafał Miłecki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists