[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170510131115.GH21870@x1>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:11:15 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dyoung@...hat.com,
douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] KASLR: Parse all memmap entries in cmdline
On 05/10/17 at 02:29pm, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2017, Baoquan He wrote:
>
> > In commit:
> >
> > f28442497b5c ("x86/boot: Fix KASLR and memmap= collision")
> >
> > ... the memmap= option is parsed so that KASLR can avoid those reserved
> > regions. It uses cmdline_find_option() to get the value if memmap=
> > is specified, however the problem is that cmdline_find_option() can only
> > find the last entry if multiple memmap entries are provided. This
> > is not correct.
> >
> > In this patch, the whole cmdline will be scanned to search each
>
> Can you please finally stop using this 'This patch does foo', 'In this
> patch' phrases. They are bogus. We already know that this is a patch
> otherwise you wouldn't have sent it.
>
> See Documentation/process/SubmittingPatches.txt
>
> Aside of that can you please use properly written out words instead of
> using random abbreviations in the changelog, e.g. command line instead of
> cmdline?
>
> > memmap, all of them will be parsed and handled.
>
> A proper example would be:
>
> Address this by checking each command line token for a "memmap=" match
> and parse each instance instead of using cmdline_find_option().
Sorry for those mistakes. Will change accordingly when repost.
Thanks
Baoquan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists