linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.8 102/140] x86/e820: Dont merge consecutive E820

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:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:22:42 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Zhang Yi <yizhan@...hat.com>, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.8 102/140] x86/e820: Dont merge consecutive E820_PRAM ranges

4.8-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>

commit 23446cb66c073b827779e5eb3dec301623299b32 upstream.

Commit:

  917db484dc6a ("x86/boot: Fix kdump, cleanup aborted E820_PRAM max_pfn manipulation")

... fixed up the broken manipulations of max_pfn in the presence of
E820_PRAM ranges.

However, it also broke the sanitize_e820_map() support for not merging
E820_PRAM ranges.

Re-introduce the enabling to keep resource boundaries between
consecutive defined ranges. Otherwise, for example, an environment that
boots with memmap=2G!8G,2G!10G will end up with a single 4G /dev/pmem0
device instead of a /dev/pmem0 and /dev/pmem1 device 2G in size.

Reported-by: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Zhang Yi <yizhan@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org
Fixes: 917db484dc6a ("x86/boot: Fix kdump, cleanup aborted E820_PRAM max_pfn manipulation")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/147629530854.10618.10383744751594021268.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/x86/kernel/e820.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ int __init sanitize_e820_map(struct e820
 		 * continue building up new bios map based on this
 		 * information
 		 */
-		if (current_type != last_type) {
+		if (current_type != last_type || current_type == E820_PRAM) {
 			if (last_type != 0)	 {
 				new_bios[new_bios_entry].size =
 					change_point[chgidx]->addr - last_addr;