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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:58:00 +0200 From: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com> To: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Roger C. Pao" <rcpao.enmotus@...il.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pmem: Allow request_mem to fail, (CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM_IGNORE_REQUEST_MEM_RET) On 02/17/2015 10:52 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 13:24 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> With old Kernels there was a bug in x86 where any unknown >> memory chip type would come up BUSY when calling >> request_mem_region_exclusive(). >> >> So for pmem to work with old Kernels and real NvDIMM chips >> we have a new Kconfig option CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM_IGNORE_REQUEST_MEM_RET. >> >> People have been running with hacked up pmem that will ignore >> the return code from request_mem_region_exclusive. So here it is >> official >> >> Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com> > Hi Ross, good morning > I'm confused - I thought that this behavior was fixed by patch 1/3? > With that patch this memory reservation should not fail, correct? > Yes, I have tested it extensively and PATCH-1/3 fixes this problem for sure. > If so, why do we need this patch? > I put in this patch for people that do-not-want/cannot compile their own Kernel but have a need for pmem.c regardless. I will not include this patch in the final submitted Kernel. Given that patch-1 gets accepted before the merge of pmem. Lets say that patch-1 and patch-3 are either or. A tree that has 1/3 does not need 3/3, a tree that does not have 1/3 needs 3/3. <> Thanks Boaz -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists