linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] support for broken memory modules (BadRAM)

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: <BANLkTimPMnuoBRT9897hc-qBttyRZn46+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:06:34 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Stefan Assmann <sassmann@...nic.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
	rick@...rein.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	Nancy Yuen <yuenn@...gle.com>,
	Michael Ditto <mditto@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] support for broken memory modules (BadRAM)

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:>
> I have a couple of thoughts here:
>
> - If this patchset is merged and a major user such as google is
>  unable to use it and has to continue to carry a separate patch then
>  that's a regrettable situation for the upstream kernel.
>
> - Google's is, afaik, the largest use case we know of: zillions of
>  machines for a number of years.  And this real-world experience tells
>  us that the badram patchset has shortcomings.  Shortcomings which we
>  can expect other users to experience.
>
> So.  What are your thoughts on these issues?

Has Google submitted patches for their implementation?

josh
--
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/