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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:44:41 +0800 From: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com> To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86/mm: remove bottom-up allocation style for x86_64 On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:33 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote: > > On 1/7/19 10:13 PM, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:42 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote: > >> Why is this 0x100000 open-coded? Why is this needed *now*? > >> > > > > Memory under 1MB should be used by BIOS. For x86_64, after > > e820__memblock_setup(), the memblock allocator has already been ready > > to work. But there are two factors to in order to > > set_alloc_range(0x100000, end). The major one is to be compatible with > > x86_32, please refer to alloc_low_pages->memblock_find_in_range() uses > > [min_pfn_mapped, max_pfn_mapped] to limit the range, which is ready to > > be allocated from. The minor one is to prevent unexpected allocation > > from memblock allocator through allow_low_pages() at very early stage. > > Wow, that's a ton of critical information which was neither commented > upon or referenced in the changelog. Can you fix this up in the next > version, please? Sure. Thanks, Pingfan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists