From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix kaslr and memmap collision
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:04:58 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161124000458.GS31101@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jR8cVG4y90aCNycc8-PY29Jm3J89-w87dgE4hBpfVxWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:01:32AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >> No, you're right, we need to handle multiple ranges. Since the
> >> mem_avoid array is statically allocated perhaps we can handle up to 4
> >> memmap= entries, but past that point disable kaslr for that boot?
> >
> > Yeah, that seems fine to me. I assume it's rare to have 4?
> >
>
> It should be rare to have *one* since ACPI 6.0 added support for
> communicating persistent memory ranges. However there are legacy
> nvdimm users that I know are doing at least 2, but I have hard time
> imagining they would ever do more than 4.
I doubt it's rare amongst the people using RAM to emulate pmem for
filesystem testing purposes. My "pmem" test VM always has at least 2
ranges set to give me two discrete pmem devices, and I have used 4
from time to time to do things like test multi-volume scratch XFS
filesystems in xfstests (i.e. data, log and realtime volumes) so I
didn't need to play games with partitioning or DM...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix kaslr and memmap collision
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:04:58 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161124000458.GS31101@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jR8cVG4y90aCNycc8-PY29Jm3J89-w87dgE4hBpfVxWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:01:32AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >> No, you're right, we need to handle multiple ranges. Since the
> >> mem_avoid array is statically allocated perhaps we can handle up to 4
> >> memmap= entries, but past that point disable kaslr for that boot?
> >
> > Yeah, that seems fine to me. I assume it's rare to have 4?
> >
>
> It should be rare to have *one* since ACPI 6.0 added support for
> communicating persistent memory ranges. However there are legacy
> nvdimm users that I know are doing at least 2, but I have hard time
> imagining they would ever do more than 4.
I doubt it's rare amongst the people using RAM to emulate pmem for
filesystem testing purposes. My "pmem" test VM always has at least 2
ranges set to give me two discrete pmem devices, and I have used 4
from time to time to do things like test multi-volume scratch XFS
filesystems in xfstests (i.e. data, log and realtime volumes) so I
didn't need to play games with partitioning or DM...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-24 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-22 0:22 [PATCH] x86: fix kaslr and memmap collision Dave Jiang
2016-11-22 0:22 ` Dave Jiang
2016-11-22 8:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-11-22 8:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-11-22 17:26 ` Dan Williams
2016-11-22 17:26 ` Dan Williams
2016-11-22 18:54 ` Kees Cook
2016-11-22 18:54 ` Kees Cook
2016-11-22 19:01 ` Dan Williams
2016-11-22 19:01 ` Dan Williams
2016-11-22 22:37 ` Kees Cook
2016-11-22 22:37 ` Kees Cook
2016-11-24 0:04 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2016-11-24 0:04 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-24 19:30 ` Dan Williams
2016-11-24 19:30 ` Dan Williams
2017-01-03 8:31 ` Baoquan He
2017-01-03 8:31 ` Baoquan He
2017-01-03 16:27 ` Ross Zwisler
2017-01-03 16:27 ` Ross Zwisler
2017-01-03 18:24 ` Dan Williams
2017-01-03 18:24 ` Dan Williams
2017-01-03 20:15 ` Dave Jiang
2017-01-03 20:15 ` Dave Jiang
2017-01-04 1:57 ` Baoquan He
2017-01-04 1:57 ` Baoquan He
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161124000458.GS31101@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.