[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEMfDd=OVoZQ9C2hiJg7QbD8LvTjXRyrHDPvhOQYn=5cA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 08:02:28 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Bhupesh SHARMA <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Make kexec_file_load honor iomem reservations
On Thu, 27 May 2021 at 19:39, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 08:05:27PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > This series is a complete departure from the approach I initially sent
> > almost a month ago[1]. Instead of trying to teach EFI, ACPI and other
> > subsystem to use memblock, I've decided to stick with the iomem
> > resource tree and use that exclusively for arm64.
> >
> > This means that my current approach is (despite what I initially
> > replied to both Dave and Catalin) to provide an arm64-specific
> > implementation of arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() which walks the
> > resource tree and excludes ranges of RAM that have been registered for
> > any odd purpose. This is exactly what the userspace implementation
> > does, and I don't really see a good reason to diverge from it.
> >
> > Again, this allows my Synquacer board to reliably use kexec_file_load
> > with as little as 256M, something that would always fail before as it
> > would overwrite most of the reserved tables.
> >
> > Obviously, this is now at least 5.14 material. Given how broken
> > kexec_file_load is for non-crash kernels on arm64 at the moment,
> > should we at least disable it in 5.13 and all previous stable kernels?
>
> I think it makes sense to disable it in the current and earlier kernels.
>
Ack to that
> For this series:
>
> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
and likewise for the series
Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists