linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 efi: Fill all reserved memmap entries if add_efi

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: <4BEB1781.1080907@sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 May 2010 14:02:57 -0700
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Yinghai <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 efi: Fill all reserved memmap entries if add_efi_memmap
 specified.



Yinghai wrote:
> On 05/12/2010 11:55 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/12/2010 11:10 AM, Mike Travis wrote:
>>> Currently, the e820_reserve_resources() function does not add entries
>>> obtained via the "add_efi_memmap" kernel cmdline option.  This causes
>>> /sys/firmware/memmap/... to be incomplete (stops after 128 entries).
>>> Utilities that examine these entries then do not get the complete
>>> picture of system memory.
>>>
>>> This patch causes the above function to use the e820 memmap instead
>>> of the e820_saved memmap if "add_efi_memmap" cmdline option is
>>> specified.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the very reason for the e820 vs e820_saved map is
>> that the latter is supposed to reflect the firmware report, whereas the
>> former is subject to be modified by the kernel.  As this is actually a
>> reflection of the firmware (although it would be better if you could fix
>> the bootloader instead of adding hacks in the kernel...) it really
>> should go into e820_saved as well as e820.  Displaying the adjusted e820
>> map doesn't seem appropriate under any circumstances.
> 
> Yes, you are right.
> 
> We should not touch e820_saved and keep /sys/firmware/memmap to be consistent with it.
> 
> YH


I'm confused.  Should I:

 - copy the extra memmap entries into e820_saved and fill early_memmap from that?
or
 - don't touch e820_saved and use e820 to fill early_memmap (which is how it is now).

Thanks,
Mike
--
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/