linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: respect memory size limiting via mem= parameter

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: <20190211122308.GA119972@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:23:08 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     sstabellini@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: respect memory size limiting via
 mem= parameter


* Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:

> > If PCI devices had physical mmio memory areas above this range, we'd 
> > still expect them to work - the option was really only meant to limit 
> > RAM.
> 
> No, in this case it seems to be real RAM added via PCI. The RAM is 
> initially present in the E820 map, but the "mem=" will remove it from 
> there again. During ACPI scan it is found (again) and will be added via 
> hotplug mechanism, so "mem=" has no effect for that memory.

OK. With that background:

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

I suppose you want this to go upstream via the Xen tree, which is the 
main testcase for the bug to begin with?

Thanks,

	ngo