linux-kernel - srat: harsh hot-pluggable memory check?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1357846907.7523.17.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:41:47 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, zeus@....org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: srat: harsh hot-pluggable memory check?

When parsing the memory affinity mappings in arch/x86/mm/srat.c:
acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() I'm wondering if the hot-pluggable check is too harsh, 
as we consider an error if the hot-pluggable bit is set and CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is not.

Based on the ACPI specs (v5):

"If the Enabled bit is set and the Hot Pluggable bit is also set. The
system hardware supports hot-add and hot-remove of this memory
region."

This only mentions that the system supports hot-plugging, and IMHO if the
user decides not to use CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG, it shouldn't be considered an error.
Therefore would it be ok to drop the check? Or am I missing something?

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/