linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] s390x/mm: Fail when an altmap is used for arch_add

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: <86f3ff3d-d035-a806-88b7-b8c7b77c206e@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 12:51:27 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] s390x/mm: Fail when an altmap is used for
 arch_add_memory()

On 01.07.19 14:46, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 01-07-19 09:43:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 27-05-19 13:11:43, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> ZONE_DEVICE is not yet supported, fail if an altmap is passed, so we
>>> don't forget arch_add_memory()/arch_remove_memory() when unlocking
>>> support.
>>
>> Why do we need this? Sure ZONE_DEVICE is not supported for s390 and so
>> might be the case for other arches which support hotplug. I do not see
>> much point in adding warning to each of them.
> 
> I would drop this one. If there is a strong reason to have something
> like that it should come with a better explanation and it can be done on
> top.
> 

This was requested by Dan and I agree it is the right thing to do. In
the context of paravirtualized devices (e.g., virtio-pmem), it makes
sense to block functionality an arch does not support.

I'll leave the decision to Andrew.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb