linux-kernel - Re: Weirdness in __alloc_bootmem_node

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: <20120422200554.GA6385@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:05:54 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	yinghai@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.cz,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Weirdness in __alloc_bootmem_node_high

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 03:22:10PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:43:09 +0200
> 
> > I have it almost finished - except that it does not work :-(
> > We have limitations in what area we can allocate very early,
> > and here I had to use the alloc_bootmem_low() variant.
> > I had preferred a variant that allowed me to allocate
> > bottom-up in this case.
> 
> I think you're going to have to bear down and map all of linear kernel
> mappings before you start using the bootmem code rather than
> afterwards.

Thanks - I will try to do so.
But I must admit I do not (yet) see any big difference in the
approach before/after.

I digged up an old todo regarding final link of vmlinux.
Will look at this and then re-visit memblock at sparc32.

	Sam
--
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/