linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for May 3

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: <20220511123724.GA25121@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 14:37:24 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc:     hch@....de, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 3

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:10:40AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> Without even trying the patch, I double checked the boot log from
> 3f70356edf56 and I get a "software IO TLB: Cannot allocate buffer"
> With the patch its a "software IO TLB: swiotlb_init_remap: failed
> to allocate tlb structure". So spot on & I feel like an idiot for
> not spotting that before!
> 
> Is failing being fatal valid, or should it fail gracefully like it
> used to do? To me, blissfully unaware about swiotlb, the "current"
> behaviour of failing gracefully makes more sense.

Given that we're at -rc6 I think the most important thing for now is to
avoid a regression and restore the old behavior.  I'll send out a
series with this and the nslab related fixes for Xen today.

But we should look into why allocating the memory fails for your
plaforms.  Does it have very little memory?  I can't really think
of why else the memblock allocation for swiotlb would fail.