From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Bhupesh SHARMA <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Make kexec_file_load honor iomem reservations
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 18:39:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210527173915.GH8661@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210526190531.62751-1-maz@kernel.org>
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 08:05:27PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> This series is a complete departure from the approach I initially sent
> almost a month ago[1]. Instead of trying to teach EFI, ACPI and other
> subsystem to use memblock, I've decided to stick with the iomem
> resource tree and use that exclusively for arm64.
>
> This means that my current approach is (despite what I initially
> replied to both Dave and Catalin) to provide an arm64-specific
> implementation of arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() which walks the
> resource tree and excludes ranges of RAM that have been registered for
> any odd purpose. This is exactly what the userspace implementation
> does, and I don't really see a good reason to diverge from it.
>
> Again, this allows my Synquacer board to reliably use kexec_file_load
> with as little as 256M, something that would always fail before as it
> would overwrite most of the reserved tables.
>
> Obviously, this is now at least 5.14 material. Given how broken
> kexec_file_load is for non-crash kernels on arm64 at the moment,
> should we at least disable it in 5.13 and all previous stable kernels?
I think it makes sense to disable it in the current and earlier kernels.
For this series:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Bhupesh SHARMA <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Make kexec_file_load honor iomem reservations
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 18:39:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210527173915.GH8661@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210526190531.62751-1-maz@kernel.org>
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 08:05:27PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> This series is a complete departure from the approach I initially sent
> almost a month ago[1]. Instead of trying to teach EFI, ACPI and other
> subsystem to use memblock, I've decided to stick with the iomem
> resource tree and use that exclusively for arm64.
>
> This means that my current approach is (despite what I initially
> replied to both Dave and Catalin) to provide an arm64-specific
> implementation of arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() which walks the
> resource tree and excludes ranges of RAM that have been registered for
> any odd purpose. This is exactly what the userspace implementation
> does, and I don't really see a good reason to diverge from it.
>
> Again, this allows my Synquacer board to reliably use kexec_file_load
> with as little as 256M, something that would always fail before as it
> would overwrite most of the reserved tables.
>
> Obviously, this is now at least 5.14 material. Given how broken
> kexec_file_load is for non-crash kernels on arm64 at the moment,
> should we at least disable it in 5.13 and all previous stable kernels?
I think it makes sense to disable it in the current and earlier kernels.
For this series:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Bhupesh SHARMA <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Make kexec_file_load honor iomem reservations
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 18:39:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210527173915.GH8661@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210526190531.62751-1-maz@kernel.org>
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 08:05:27PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> This series is a complete departure from the approach I initially sent
> almost a month ago[1]. Instead of trying to teach EFI, ACPI and other
> subsystem to use memblock, I've decided to stick with the iomem
> resource tree and use that exclusively for arm64.
>
> This means that my current approach is (despite what I initially
> replied to both Dave and Catalin) to provide an arm64-specific
> implementation of arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() which walks the
> resource tree and excludes ranges of RAM that have been registered for
> any odd purpose. This is exactly what the userspace implementation
> does, and I don't really see a good reason to diverge from it.
>
> Again, this allows my Synquacer board to reliably use kexec_file_load
> with as little as 256M, something that would always fail before as it
> would overwrite most of the reserved tables.
>
> Obviously, this is now at least 5.14 material. Given how broken
> kexec_file_load is for non-crash kernels on arm64 at the moment,
> should we at least disable it in 5.13 and all previous stable kernels?
I think it makes sense to disable it in the current and earlier kernels.
For this series:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-27 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-26 19:05 [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Make kexec_file_load honor iomem reservations Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` [PATCH 1/4] kexec_file: Make locate_mem_hole_callback global Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` [PATCH 2/4] kernel/resource: Populate child pointer in find_next_iomem_res() Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-27 16:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-27 16:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-27 16:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-28 8:06 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-28 8:06 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-28 8:06 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` [PATCH 3/4] kernel/resource: Add walk_excluding_child_res() helper Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: kexec_image: Implement arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-26 19:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-27 17:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-27 17:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-27 17:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-28 9:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-28 9:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-28 9:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-05-27 17:39 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2021-05-27 17:39 ` [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Make kexec_file_load honor iomem reservations Catalin Marinas
2021-05-27 17:39 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-31 6:02 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-31 6:02 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-31 6:02 ` Ard Biesheuvel
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=20210527173915.GH8661@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mdf@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
--cc=will@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.