| 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: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:33:57 -0700 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com> Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> writes: > This series of patch implements automatically reserved memory for crashkernel, > by introducing a new boot option "crashkernel=auto". This idea is from Neil. > > In case of breaking user-space applications, it modifies this boot option after > it decides how much memory should be reserved. > > On different arch, the threshold and reserved memory size is different. Please > refer patch 7/7 which contains an update for the documentation. > > Note: This patchset was only tested on x86_64 with differernt memory sizes. This seems like a silly hard code. Especially for a feature distros don't care enough about to implement a working initrd for. Has anyone bothered to justify those large amounts of memory? Where does the 128M go? Please pardon me for being a cynic but I don't see the command line option being the bottleneck for real users to make this work. Eric -- 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