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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E023D3E.1090408@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:06:38 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Nancy Yuen <yuenn@...gle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stefan Assmann <sassmann@...nic.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org, mingo@...e.hu, rick@...rein.org,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, Michael Ditto <mditto@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] support for broken memory modules (BadRAM)

On 06/22/2011 12:01 PM, Nancy Yuen wrote:
> 
> Good point.  There's the MAX_NODES that expands it, though it's still
> hard coded, and as I understand, intended for NUMA node entries.  We
> need anywhere from 8K to 64K 'bad' entries.  This creates holes and
> translates to twice as many entries in the e820.  We only want to
> allow this memory if it's needed, instead of hard coding it.
> 

It should be dynamic, probably.  We can waste memory during early
reclaim, but the memblock stuff should be dynamic.

	-hpa
--
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/