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: <516B9714.80007@sr71.net>
Date:	Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:58:44 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To:	HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead
 of memmap= boot parameter

On 04/14/2013 09:52 PM, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
> This sounds like there's no such issue on x86 cache mechanism. Is it
> correct? If so, what is the difference between ia64 and x86 cache
> mechanisms?

I'm just going by the code comments:

drivers/char/mem.c
>                 /*
>                  * On ia64 if a page has been mapped somewhere as uncached, then
>                  * it must also be accessed uncached by the kernel or data
>                  * corruption may occur.
>                  */

--
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/