linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/1] x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge windows on newer systems

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: <20220519144923.GA22233@bhelgaas>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 09:49:23 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
        Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@...us.ca>,
        Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/1] x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge
 windows on newer systems

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 04:29:43PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 5/19/22 16:14, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 04:01:48PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > 
> >> Ok, I'll go and prepare a v9 and I will submit that later today.
> > 
> > Would it be practical to split into three patches?
> > 
> >   1) Add command-line args
> >   2) Add DMI quirks
> >   3) Add date check
> > 
> > It seems easier to assimilate and document in smaller pieces, if
> > that's possible.
> 
> Ack, will do. Note this will cause quite a bit of copy/paste
> in the commit msg to explain why these changes are necessary.

OK, if the repetition gets excessive I can squash them back
together.  Hopefully the main explanation can go in the first patch,
the second can just mention the fact that these machines need the
exception, and the third can focus on the plan for the future.