linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd

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]

Date:	Sat, 24 Aug 2013 01:29:56 +0800
From:	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei.yes@...il.com>
To:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
CC:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	konrad.wilk@...cle.com, robert.moore@...el.com, lv.zheng@...el.com,
	rjw@...k.pl, lenb@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, trenn@...e.de,
	yinghai@...nel.org, jiang.liu@...wei.com, wency@...fujitsu.com,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
	izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com, mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org,
	mina86@...a86.com, gong.chen@...ux.intel.com,
	vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
	riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com, prarit@...hat.com,
	zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com, yanghy@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd_override() earlier.

Hi Toshi,

On 08/24/2013 01:13 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 12:24 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:14:08AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
>>> I still think acpi table info should be available earlier, but I do not
>>> think I can convince you on this.  This can be religious debate.
>>
>> I'm curious.  If there aren't substantial enough benefits, why would
>> you still want to pull it earlier when it brings in things like initrd
>> override and crafting the code carefully so that it's safe to execute
>> it from different address modes and so on?  Please note that x86 is
>> not ia64.  The early environment is completely different not only
>> technically but also in its diversity and suckiness.  It wasn't too
>> long ago that vendors were screwing up ACPI left and right.  It has
>> been getting better but there's a reason why, for example, we still
>> consider e820 to be the authoritative information over ACPI.
> 
> Firmware generates tables, and provides them via some interface.  Memory
> map table can be provided via e820 or EFI memory map.  Memory topology
> table is provided via ACPI.  I agree to prioritize one table over the
> other when there is overlap.  But in the end, it is the firmware that
> generates the tables.  Because it is provided via ACPI does not make it
> suddenly unreliable.  I think table info from e820/EFI/ACPI should be
> available at the same time.  To me, it makes more sense to use the
> hotplug info to initialize memblock than try to find a way to workaround
> without it.  

Yeah, agreed. But sigh.... on x86, we have ACPI initrd override, so we still
cannot convince Tj....

I think we will continue to be in that way to find a
> workaround in this direction. 
> 
> I came from ia64 background, and am not very familiar with x86.  So, you
> may be very right about that x86 is different.  I also agree that initrd
> is making it unnecessarily complicated.  We may see some initial issues,
> but my hope is that the code gets matured over the time.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
> 


-- 
Thanks.
Zhang Yanfei
--
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/