linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv8 00/12] Contiguous Memory Allocator

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]

Date:	Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:42:57 +0200
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Tomasz Fujak <t.fujak@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>,
	Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	Johan MOSSBERG <johan.xx.mossberg@...ricsson.com>,
	Ankita Garg <ankita@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/12] Contiguous Memory Allocator

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:04:07PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote:
>> In other words, should we take your response as yet another NAK?
>> Or would you try harder and at least point us to some direction that
>> would not doom the effort from the very beginning.
>
> What the fsck do you think I've been doing?  This is NOT THE FIRST time
> I've raised this issue.  I gave up raising it after the first couple
> of attempts because I wasn't being listened to.
>
> You say about _me_ not being very helpful.  How about the CMA proponents
> start taking the issue I've raised seriously, and try to work out how
> to solve it?  And how about blaming them for the months of wasted time
> on this issue _because_ _they_ have chosen to ignore it?

I've also raised the issue for ARM. However, I don't see what is the
big problem.

A generic solution (that I think I already proposed) would be to
reserve a chunk of memory for the CMA that can be removed from the
normally mapped kernel memory through memblock at boot time. The size
of this memory region would be configurable through kconfig. Then, the
CMA would have a "dma" flag or something, and take chunks out of it
until there's no more, and then return errors. That would work for
ARM.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/