linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] PNP: HP nx6325 fixup: reserve unreported resources

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: <AANLkTi=a4kOssPYfdYHW5yn9q03=2_6v4bZeCj4iGsUi@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:44:51 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] PNP: HP nx6325 fixup: reserve unreported resources

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> That's a maintainable approach. But it's maintainable ONLY if we then
> don't do other random changes that invalidates all the years of
> testing we've had.

Btw, looking at all the x86-specific commits that have gone in, I'm
*extremely* unhappy that they apparently stopped honoring that
"resource_alloc_from_bottom" flag that I explicitly asked for.

So it looks like it's not enough to just set that flag. We have to
actually revert all the commits in this area as broken.

Which is sad, but since they clearly *are* broken and don't honor the
flag that was there explicitly to avoid this problem and make it easy
to test reverting it, I'm really pissed off. The WHOLE POINT of that
flag was to give people an option to say "use the old resource
allocation order because the new one doesn't work for me".

So at this point the only question is whether I should just revert the
whole effing lot, or whether there are patches to fix the code to
honor the "allocate from bottom" bit and then just set it by default
again.

Bjorn? Preferences?

                           Linus
--
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/