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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 11 Jun 2020 23:29:59 -0400
From:   Daniel Jordan <>
To:     Dave Hansen <>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <>,,,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        David Hildenbrand <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,
        Pavel Tatashin <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Steven Sistare <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> One other nit for this.  We *do* have actual hardware hotplug, and I'm
> pretty sure the alignment guarantees for hardware hotplug are pretty
> weak.  For instance, the alignment guarantees for persistent memory are
> still only 64MB even on modern platforms.
> Let's say we're on bare metal and we see an SRAT table that has some
> areas that show that hotplug might happen there.  Is this patch still
> ideal there?

Well, not if there's concern about hardware hotplug.

My assumption going in was that this wasn't a problem in practice.
078eb6aa50dc50 ("x86/mm/memory_hotplug: determine block size based on the end
of boot memory") was merged in 2018 to address qemu hotplug failures and >64G
systems have used a 2G block since 2014 with no complaints about alignment
issues, to my knowledge anyway.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists