linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1357935230.7523.32.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:13:50 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, zeus@....org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: srat: harsh hot-pluggable memory check?

On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 21:02 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> The very strict checks were originally implemented because various early
> BIOS had largely fictional SRATs, and trusting them blindly caused
> boot failures or a lot of wasted memory for unnecessary hotplug zones. 
> The wasted memory was mainly a problem with the old memory hotplug
> implementation that pre-allocated memmaps, that's not a problem anymore.
> However there may be still some other failure cases.
> 

Would you be willing to take a patch that drops this check then? Or do
you see any other scenario where it would still be valid?

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/