linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, mm: Reserver some memory for bootmem allocator for NO

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808301352410.1210@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:54:19 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, mm: Reserver some memory for bootmem allocator for
 NO_BOOTMEM

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 30-08-18 12:44:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 05:03:19PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > The root cause is that when CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM=y,  before
> > > e820__memblock_setup() is called there is no memory for bootmem
> > > to allocate,
> > 
> > Which you bloody well asked for by using NO_BOOTMEM=y.
> > 
> > Going down this route; adding hacks for every little thing that does
> > want bootmem, completely defeats the purpose.
> > 
> > If anything, make the earlycon thing depend on NO_BOOTMEM=n. That also
> > solves your problem. No earlycon, no panic.
> 
> Well, there is endeavor to remove bootmem allocator altogether. So
> making earlycon depend on NO_BOOTMEM=n doesn't sound like a good fit to

If we want to remove bootmem, then reintroducing it with a static bootmem
section doesn't make any sense at all.

Thanks,

	tglx