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]
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:47:01 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <>
To:     Vladimir Murzin <>,
Cc:     Chris Zankel <>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>,,,, Russell King <>,, Max Filippov <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Paul Mackerras <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memtest: Add ARCH_USE_MEMTEST

On 2/5/21 2:50 PM, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> Hi Anshuman,
> On 2/5/21 4:10 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> early_memtest() does not get called from all architectures. Hence enabling
>> CONFIG_MEMTEST and providing a valid memtest=[1..N] kernel command line
>> option might not trigger the memory pattern tests as would be expected in
>> normal circumstances. This situation is misleading.
> Documentation already mentions which architectures support that:
> memtest=        [KNL,X86,ARM,PPC] Enable memtest
> yet I admit that not all reflected there

But there is nothing that prevents CONFIG_MEMTEST from being set on
other platforms that do not have an affect, which is not optimal.

>> The change here prevents the above mentioned problem after introducing a
>> new config option ARCH_USE_MEMTEST that should be subscribed on platforms
>> that call early_memtest(), in order to enable the config CONFIG_MEMTEST.
>> Conversely CONFIG_MEMTEST cannot be enabled on platforms where it would
>> not be tested anyway.
> Is that generic pattern? What about other cross arch parameters? Do they already
> use similar subscription or they rely on documentation?

Depending solely on the documentation should not be sufficient.

> I'm not against the patch just want to check if things are consistent...
Not sure about other similar situations but those if present should
get fixed as well.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists