linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 44/60] PCI: Add alt_size ressource allocation support

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:	Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:56:46 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Wei Yang <weiyang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, TJ <linux@....tj>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 44/60] PCI: Add alt_size ressource allocation support

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On system with several pcie switches, BIOS allocate very tight resources
> to the bridge bar, and it is not aligned to min_align as kernel allocation
> code.

Ok, this came in after I already replied to the other ones.

I'm not excited about the whole "alternate aligment".

Maybe the kernel should just accept the smaller alignment. If the
minimum alignment we use is bigger than necessary, then we're just
wrong about it, and perhaps we should just use the smaller alignment
that the bios used.

So instead of adding this notion of alternate alignment, maybe we
should just not be so uptight about our own minimum alignment
requirements?

                  Linus