| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <4A03F016.76EA.0078.0@novell.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 07:40:54 +0100 From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: <mingo@...e.hu>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: improve e820_search_gap() >>> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> 08.05.09 06:59 >>> >Jan Beulich wrote: >> Impact: bug fix >> >> Blindly putting the gap close after max_pfn is in conflict with that >> same memory range potentially being used by hotplugged memory. >> >> Also, make the function static to ensure there are no other users that >> could depend on the previous behavior regarding the way start_addr gets >> specified. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> >> > >So blindly locate it somewhere else? How is that inherently better? >Wouldn't a machine with hotplug memory (which doesn't bother advertising >that fact so we can reserve the address space) be just as likely to use >a sparse memory space, since one can hardly expect the hardware to pack >the space (packing in hardware is why PCs generally have a >mostly-contiguous RAM space) when the memory is hotplugged? Why blindly? Aren't hotpluggable memory ranges supposed to be reserved in the E820 map? Jan -- 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