linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: don't exclude low BIOS area when allocating address space for non-PCI cards

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:26:37 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	Christoph Schulz <develop@...stov.de>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Robert Resch <fli4l@...ert.reschpara.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: don't exclude low BIOS area when allocating
 address space for non-PCI cards

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Christoph Schulz <develop@...stov.de> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Bjorn Helgaas schrieb am Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:00:21 -0600:
>
>
>> I applied this to pci/misc for v3.17, thanks.
>
>
> Thank you very much. What do you think about queuing it up to -stable?
> Commit 30919b0bf356 is in the tree since 2.6.37-rc7. We have used the
> proposed patch for over a year (since 3.2.42 / 3.7.10 / 3.8.5, to be exact)
> without any regressions. I *think* it meets the criteria for -stable, but I
> don't have much experience of Linux kernel development processes, so it's
> your decision, of course.

Good point, I added:

CC: stable@...r.kernel.org  # v2.6.37+

>> This effectively reverts 30919b0bf356 ("x86: avoid low BIOS area when
>> allocating address space").  I don't see a reference there to a bug
>> fixed by 30919b0bf356, so hopefully reverting it won't reintroduce a
>> bug.
>
>
> Well, for PCI, the current behaviour does not change effectively, and for
> ISA, the proposed patch fixes a bug. What memory allocations beyond ISA and
> PCI could be adversely affected?

There aren't very many, I guess, but I don't want to build things on
the assumption that ISA and PCI are the only possibilities.  ISA was
once the only possibility :)

Bjorn
--
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/