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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4f10c3aa-5eca-ee00-6b9e-f152ffdcca7f@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 17:06:37 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
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

Hi Bjorn,

On 5/19/22 16:49, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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.

I'm almost done with prepping v9 and atm there is a 17 line
introduction of the problem which is shared between all 3
patches in the commit msg.

I personally don't think this is too bad, but feel free to
shorten it a bit in patch 2 + 3 before merging these.

I think the split makes sense, so I would prefer you amending
the commit msg over squashing them back together again.

Regards,

Hans