linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: reserve DTB before possible memblock allocation

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: <20230607-unruly-encore-e00661704b71@spud>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2023 23:23:31 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To:     Woody Zhang <woodylab@...mail.com>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        alexghiti@...osinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: reserve DTB before possible memblock allocation

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 06:17:22AM +0800, Woody Zhang wrote:
> Hi, Conor
> 
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 07:17:28PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >+CC Alex, you should take a look at this patch.
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:35:19PM +0800, Woody Zhang wrote:
> >> It's possible that early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() allocates memory
> >> from memblock for dynamic reserved memory in `/reserved-memory` node.
> >> Any fixed reservation must be done before that to avoid potential
> >> conflicts.
> >> 
> >> Reserve the DTB in memblock just after early scanning it.
> >
> >The rationale makes sense to me, I am just wondering what compelling
> >reason there is to move it away from the memblock_reserve()s for the
> >initd and vmlinux? Moving it above early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem()
> >should be the sufficient minimum & would keep things together.
> 
> IMO, moving it to parse_dtb() is more reasonable as early scanning and
> reservation are both subject to DTB. It can also lower the risk to
> mess up the sequence in the future. BTW, it's also invoked in
> setup_machine_fdt() in arm64.

I'm fine with the change either way, so:
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Mostly wanted to know whether you'd considered the minimal change.

Cheers,
Conor.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)