linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 RESEND v8] x86/kdump: always reserve the low 1M when the crashkernel option is specified

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]

Date:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:40:35 +0800
From:   lijiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, bhe@...hat.com, dyoung@...hat.com,
        jgross@...e.com, dhowells@...hat.com, Thomas.Lendacky@....com,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, d.hatayama@...itsu.com,
        horms@...ge.net.au, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 RESEND v8] x86/kdump: always reserve the low 1M when
 the crashkernel option is specified

在 2019年10月31日 15:13, Borislav Petkov 写道:
> Please do not merge a 0day bot fix with another patch of yours which
> does not cause it in the first place. When you look at this patch alone,
> what do you think the Reported-by tag means, if anything at all?
> 
Thanks for your suggestions.

Maybe it should be a separate patch to fix the old compile warnings as follow.
And i should put the patch into this series.


commit d2091d1f4f67f1c38293b0e93fdbfefa766940cf (HEAD -> master)
Author: Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
Date:   Thu Oct 31 15:48:02 2019 +0800

    kexec: Fix i386 build warnings that missed declaration of struct kimage
    
    Kbuild test robot reported some build warnings, please refer to the
    Link below for details.
    
    Add a declaration of struct kimage to fix these compile warnings.
    
    Fixes: dd5f726076cc ("kexec: support for kexec on panic using new system call")
    Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
    Signed-off-by: Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
    Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/30/833

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/crash.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/crash.h
index 0acf5ee45a21..ef5638f641f2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/crash.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/crash.h
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 #ifndef _ASM_X86_CRASH_H
 #define _ASM_X86_CRASH_H
 
+struct kimage;
+
 int crash_load_segments(struct kimage *image);
 int crash_copy_backup_region(struct kimage *image);
 int crash_setup_memmap_entries(struct kimage *image,

> Also, it is not a "RESEND" if you change them. You can call them v8.1 or
> whatever to denote that the change is small.
> 
Thanks for your explanation in detail.

> Also, do not send v9 or v8.1 or whatever, immediately but wait for other
> reviews.

OK. Lets wait a week or more.

> You have sent these patches 4(!) times in this week alone. How
> would you feel if I hammer your inbox with patches on a daily basis?
>Probably because the change is small.

Anyway, so sorry, it seems inconsiderate.

> You can read
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
> 
> in the meantime, especially section
> 
> "9) Don't get discouraged - or impatient"
> 
> while waiting.

OK. Thanks.

Lianbo