linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add SMP bringup support for mt65xx socs

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]

Message-ID: <1443109498.14481.5.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:44:58 +0800
From:	Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add SMP bringup support for mt65xx socs

On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 18:50 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 23:31 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > The problem is that this patch series uses memblock_reserve() way after
> > the memory has been transitioned out of memblock's control, so actually
> > this has no effect.
> > 
> > I've seen a number of patches doing this.  I'm not sure what's soo friggin
> > hard for people to understand: memblock is about the EARLY stages of
> > getting the system up and running.  Once the memory has been handed
> > over to the kernel's memory management, memblock MUST NOT BE USED to
> > reserve memory.
> > 
> > There is one place, and one place only in the ARM kernel where
> > memblock_reserve() is possible, and that's in the ->reserve machine
> > callback.  NOWHERE ELSE is permissible.
> 
> 
> It seems we can write memory-reserve node in device tree to do this as
> well. Do you prefer us to reserve memblock in reserve callback or using
> device tree?

After consideration, I decide to reserve this memory in device tree. The
memory is already used by trustzone, we should reserved them even when
we don't run SMP. I just sent out a new series, please help to review
them.
Thanks

Joe.C


--
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/