linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 2/4] x86/64/mm: Make SPARSEMEM

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: <aCdBXxPNO4NtZ_Wl@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 15:45:03 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	Kieran Bingham <kbingham@...nel.org>,
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
	Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/4] x86/64/mm: Make SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP the only memory
 model


* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/25 05:33, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > 5-level paging only supports SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP. CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL is
> > being phased out, making 5-level paging support mandatory.
> > 
> > Make CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP mandatory for x86-64 and eliminate
> > any associated conditional statements.
> I think we have ourselves a catch-22 here.
> 
> SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP was selected because the other sparsemem modes
> couldn't handle a dynamic MAX_PHYS{MEM,ADDR}_BITS introduced by 5-level
> paging. Now you're proposing making it static again, but keeping the
> SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP dependency.
> 
> If you remove the dynamic MAX_PHYS{MEM,ADDR}_BITS, you should also
> remove the dependency on SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP. No?

Isn't it the other way around? MAX_PHYS{MEM,ADDR}_BITS are now *always* 
dynamic, their value depending on whether LA57 is available and used.

Thanks,

	Ingo