linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] kdump: crashkernel reservation from CMA

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: <ZWnJyArAmFo_uYPA@tiehlicka>
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:55:52 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Philipp Rudo <prudo@...hat.com>
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>, Pingfan Liu <piliu@...hat.com>,
        Tao Liu <ltao@...hat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] kdump: crashkernel reservation from CMA

On Fri 01-12-23 12:33:53, Philipp Rudo wrote:
[...]
> And yes, those are all what-if concerns but unfortunately that is all
> we have right now.

Should theoretical concerns without an actual evidence (e.g. multiple
drivers known to be broken) become a roadblock for this otherwise useful
feature? 

> Only alternative would be to run extended tests in
> the field. Which means this user facing change needs to be included.
> Which also means that we are stuck with it as once a user facing change
> is in it's extremely hard to get rid of it again...

I am not really sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting once
crashkernel=cma is added it would become a user api and therefore
impossible to get rid of?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs