linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas

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: <201012121420.57217.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:20:56 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Adam Belay <abelay@....edu>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas

On Sunday, December 12, 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:34:05 -0800
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'll add Dan and Rafael's tested-bys to the patches (they're
> > > already in my for-linus tree).  Unless Linus has a problem with them
> > > I'll send them over to him this weekend or Monday.
> > 
> > See my other email I just sent out.
> > 
> > I really am not going to take some totally new experimental and hacky
> > major PCI resource management thing this late in the -rc game. No way,
> > no how.
> > 
> > If the top-down allocator is causing regressions that cannot be fixed
> > by _simple_ patches, we're simply going to have to undo it. What's the
> > advantage of top-down? None. Not if we then need all this crap, which
> > we could as easily do on top of the bottom-up one WITHOUT any
> > regressions.
> > 
> > Why isn't anybody else questioning the whole basic premise here?
> 
> Questioning the whole premise is fine, but so far we've gone in (or at
> least think we're going in) a consistent direction: behave like Windows
> on platforms designed for Windows to avoid bugs that Windows doesn't
> hit and enable all the same devices Windows allows.
> 
> But yes, I really don't like the nx6325 patch either; there's obviously
> something we're still missing that's preventing us from doing the right
> thing on that platform.  Quirking it isn't a good long term answer.

OK, so I guess the best thing we can do for 2.6.37 is to revert
1af3c2e (x86: allocate space within a region top-down), right?

Rafael
--
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/