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: <201012141657.28244.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:57:27 -0700
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Tuesday, December 14, 2010 01:44:51 pm Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

In 20-20 hindsight, I should have made that switch affect more things.
I tried to do what you asked; I obviously just didn't do enough, and
I am sorry.

> 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?

Let me identify the set of reversion candidates and the consequences,
and then we can figure out whether it's better to retreat or push
forward.

Bjorn
--
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/