linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter

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: <5166D18A.7090800@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:06:50 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead
 of memmap= boot parameter

On 04/11/2013 07:55 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de> wrote:
>> Currently ranges are passed via kernel boot parameters:
>> memmap=exactmap memmap=X#Y memmap=
>>
>> Pass them via e820 table directly instead.
> 
> how to address "saved_max_pfn" referring in kernel?
> 
> kernel need to use saved_max_pfn from old e820 in
> drivers/char/mem.c::read_oldmem()
> 
> mips and powerpc they are passing that from command line "savemaxmem="
> 
> x86 should use that too?
> 

Oh bloody hell, yet another f-ing "max_pfn" variable.

The *only* one that makes any kind of sense is max_low_pfn (marking the
cutoff to highmem)... the pretty much the rest of them are just plain wrong.

And I don't mean "mildly annoying", I mean "catastrophically wrong
semantics".  In this case, it introduces a completely arbitrary
distinction between a nonmemory range below a high water mark and a
nonmemory range above that high water mark.  In fact, from reading the
code it seems pretty clear that the device will blindly assume that
anything below saved_max_pfn is memory and will try to map it
cachable... which will #MC on quite a few machines.

This kind of crap HAS TO STOP.  Memory is discontiguous, deal with it
and deal with it properly.

I also have to admit that I don't see the difference between /dev/mem
and /dev/oldmem, as the former allows access to memory ranges outside
the ones used by the current kernel, which is what the oldmem device
seems to be intended to od.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/