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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <39e8f05b-868b-8ab7-a310-b4ea7ef92bcc@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:35:16 +0100
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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

On 11/02/2019 13:23, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * 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?

Yes, I'd prefer that.


Juergen