linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory

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: <20131118154209.GC32168@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:42:09 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	jerry.hoemann@...com
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"list@...ederm.org:DOCUMENTATION <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	list@...ederm.org:MEMORY MANAGEMENT <linux-mm@...ck.org>," 
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:13:08PM -0700, jerry.hoemann@...com wrote:

[..]
> > Is it possible to fix it the way hpa suggested?
> 
>   I think the changes to enable ,high is a step in the
>   right direction. its an improvement  But it is still green.
> 
>   We are having lots more problems w/ upstream kdump than we are having
>   w/ the kdump in distros.
> 
>   So, to answer your question with a slight twist:
> 
>   Is it possible to back ports lots of green code across multiple
>   versions and distros and get a bug free user experiences?  I guess so.
> 
>   is it the right way to go?  i personally don't think so.
> 
>   but hey, others may have a different view.

I agree that backporting a fix/hack to not reserve EFI boot memory on
certain platform is much easier as compared to backporting capability to
boot from higher memory addresses.

I also agree that crashkernel=X,high support is very new and it has yet to
go though a wide spread testing to confirm that it works well with wide
variety of machines. And this also makes a case to stick to crashkernel=X
for older releases and just backport a fix to not reserve EFI boot time
memory.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/