linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] pmem: Allow request_mem to fail, (CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM_IGNORE_REQUEST_MEM

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: <54E46228.9060308@plexistor.com>
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/