linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] printk: Allocate kernel log buffer earlier

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=Xf5RaF559QsRNijmG0YP7amkG569NZFhpt4QY@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:59:47 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] printk: Allocate kernel log buffer earlier

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
>
>
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/27/2011 04:15 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You could avoid all this ugly workaround of bootmem limitations by
>>>>>> moving the allocation to memblock_alloc() and desupporting the
>>>>>> log_buf_len=
>>>>>> boot parameter on non-memblock architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>> memblock_alloc() could return -ENOSYS on architectures that do not
>>>>> implement it - thus enabling such optional features without ugly #ifdef
>>>>> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK conditionals.
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> please check updated patch...
>>>>
>>>> with the memblock change, you don't need to change acpi SRAT handling
>>>> etc
>>>> any more.
>>>
>>> I had to debug a weird ACPI -> Node mapping last week and the
>>> "improved" SRAT messages helped that considerably.  It was
>>> far easier to spot which Node didn't have the correct assignments.
>>> I'd submit that patch even without needing fewer (like 512 lines
>>> max instead of 4096 lines max) bytes in the log buffer.
>>
>> Your current change to ACPI srat is not complete yet.
>>
>> you only handle x2apic entries.
>>
>> According to ACPI 4.0 spec, We should have mixed entries with apic
>> entries and x2apic entries.
>> apic entries are for apic id < 255.
>> x2apic entries are for apic id > 255.
>>
>> Yinghai
>
> Are you sure you can run both "legacy" and "x2" apic modes in
> the same SSI under the Intel or AMD rules?
>
No.

According to ACPI 4.0 Spec:
even the CPUs are with x2apic mode (aka pre-enabled in BIOS),
if their apic id < 255, BIOS still need to use xapic entries for them.

Yinghai
--
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/