linux-kernel - Re: please don't apply : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default

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]

Date:	Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:22:34 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: please don't apply : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:44:38 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:

> On 03/05/2010 12:38 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > if you don't want to drop
> > |  bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default
> > 
> > today mainline tree actually DO NOT need that patch according to print out ...
> > 
> > please apply this one too.
> > 
> > [PATCH] x86/bootmem: introduce bootmem_default_goal
> > 
> > don't punish the 64bit systems with less 4G RAM.
> > they should use _pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS) at first pass instead of failback...
> 
> andrew,
> 
> please drop Johannes' patch : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default

I'd rather not.  That patch is said to fix a runtime problem which is
present in 2.6.33 and hence we planned on backporting it into 2.6.33.x.

I don't have a clue what your patches do.  Can you tell us?

Earlier, Johannes wrote

: Humm, now that is a bit disappointing.  Because it means we will never
: get rid of bootmem as long as it works for the other architectures. 
: And your changeset just added ~900 lines of code, some of it being a
: rather ugly compatibility layer in bootmem that I hoped could go away
: again sooner than later.
: 
: I do not know what the upsides for x86 are from no longer using bootmem
: but it would suck from a code maintainance point of view to get stuck
: half way through this transition and have now TWO implementations of
: the bootmem interface we would like to get rid of.

Which is a pretty good-sounding argument.  Perhaps we should be
dropping your patches.

What patches _are_ these x86 bootmem changes, anyway?  Please identify
them so people can take a look and see what they do.

--
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/