linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, crash: Allocate enough low-mem when crashkernel=high

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:	Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:20:17 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, crash: Allocate enough low-mem when
 crashkernel=high

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:11:42PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Well, there is no easy way. But we could collect information from the
> loaded drivers on boot about how many dma-memory they allocate and base
> our allocation on that.

That sounds like a nifty idea to me.

> Or we solve it in user-space by some more cleverness in creating the
> kernel command-line for crashkernel=high.

I'd say, we should try to do as much as possible automatically.

> But besides that, I think the first two patches of this set make sense
> anyway. I understand that the third one is debatable.

Right, but since they fix a real problem, maybe we should take them now
until a better fix is done? Yes, no?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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/