linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] acpi,srat: give memory block size advice based on CFMWS alignment

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: <55a5b63a-a6bb-4ba0-9aad-c9d8741d1c3a@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:42:12 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-cxl@...ck.org, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
 dan.j.williams@...el.com, rrichter@....com, Terry.Bowman@....com,
 dave.jiang@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, alison.schofield@...el.com,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
 tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
 rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, osalvador@...e.de,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rppt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] acpi,srat: give memory block size advice based on
 CFMWS alignment


>   static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
>   				   void *arg, const unsigned long table_end)
>   {
> @@ -545,6 +569,15 @@ int __init acpi_numa_init(void)
>   	 * Initialize a fake_pxm as the first available PXM to emulate.
>   	 */
>   
> +	/* Align memblock size to CFMW regions if possible */
> +	acpi_table_parse_cedt(ACPI_CEDT_TYPE_CFMWS, acpi_align_cfmws, NULL);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Nodes start populating with blocks after this, so probe the max
> +	 * block size to prevent it from changing in the future.
> +	 */
> +	memory_block_probe_max_size();
> +

This looks odd. Why shouldn't we allow someone else to suggest/advise an 
even smaller "max size" ? I'd drop that.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb