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: <20230323092156.2545741-3-rppt@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:21:44 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER

From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@...nel.org>

It is not a good idea to change fundamental parameters of core memory
management. Having predefined ranges suggests that the values within
those ranges are sensible, but one has to *really* understand
implications of changing MAX_ORDER before actually amending it and
ranges don't help here.

Drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER

Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@...nel.org>
---
 arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index e60baf7859d1..bab6483e4317 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -1489,9 +1489,7 @@ config XEN
 config ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
 	int "Maximum zone order" if ARM64_4K_PAGES || ARM64_16K_PAGES
 	default "13" if ARM64_64K_PAGES
-	range 11 13 if ARM64_16K_PAGES
 	default "11" if ARM64_16K_PAGES
-	range 10 15 if ARM64_4K_PAGES
 	default "10"
 	help
 	  The kernel memory allocator divides physically contiguous memory
-- 
2.35.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ