linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug disable boot option

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: <1277827384.8354.3413.camel@nimitz>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:03:04 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug disable boot option

On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 11:56 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 08:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > The directories being created are the standard directories, one for each of the memory
> > > > sections present at boot.  I think the most used files in each of these directories
> > > > is the state and removable file used to do memory hotplug.
> > > 
> > > And perhaps we shouldn't really be creating so many directories?  Why
> > > not work with the memory hotplug developers to change their interface to
> > > not abuse sysfs in such a manner? 
> > 
> > Heh, it wasn't abuse until we got this much memory.  But, I think this
> > one is pretty much 100% my fault.
> > 
> > Nathan, I think the right fix here is probably to untie sysfs from the
> > sections a bit.  We should be able to have sysfs dirs that represent
> > more than one contiguous SECTION_SIZE area of memory.
> 
> Why do we need abi breakage? Yourself talked about we guess ppc don't
> actually need 16MB section. I think IBM folks have to confirm it.
> If our guessing is correct, the firmware fixing is only necessary.

>>From the mouth of the kernel dumbass who coded this up: it's not the
firmware's fault.  We shouldn't punt this to them, and the proper fix
_isn't_ in the firmware, plus they may have other more fundamental
reasons to keep the LMB sizes what they are.

-- Dave

--
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/