linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] sparse

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: <20180710055957.GA7380@techadventures.net>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 07:59:57 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...hadventures.net>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        jack@...e.cz, jglisse@...hat.com, jrdr.linux@...il.com,
        bhe@...hat.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
        richard.weiyang@...il.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] sparse_init rewrite

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:29:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon,  9 Jul 2018 13:53:09 -0400 Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > In sparse_init() we allocate two large buffers to temporary hold usemap and
> > memmap for the whole machine. However, we can avoid doing that if we
> > changed sparse_init() to operated on per-node bases instead of doing it on
> > the whole machine beforehand.
> > 
> > As shown by Baoquan
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180628062857.29658-1-bhe@redhat.com
> > 
> > The buffers are large enough to cause machine stop to boot on small memory
> > systems.
> > 
> > These patches should be applied on top of Baoquan's work, as
> > CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_ALLOC_MEM_MAP_TOGETHER is removed in that work.
> > 
> > For the ease of review, I split this work so the first patch only adds new
> > interfaces, the second patch enables them, and removes the old ones.
> 
> This clashes pretty significantly with patches from Baoquan and Oscar:
> 
> mm-sparse-make-sparse_init_one_section-void-and-remove-check.patch
> mm-sparse-make-sparse_init_one_section-void-and-remove-check-fix.patch
> mm-sparse-make-sparse_init_one_section-void-and-remove-check-fix-2.patch

Does this patchset still clash with those patches?
If so, since those patches are already in the -mm tree, would it be better to re-base the patchset on top of that?

Thanks
-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3