From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S935255AbcKXAFj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:05:39 -0500
Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:12023 "EHLO
        ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933573AbcKXAFi (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:05:38 -0500
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2CwBwBLLjZYIFo9LHleHAEBBAEBCgEBgzgBAQEBAR+BWoJ7g3mGTJV4BoEdjCiGPYIOggeGGwICAQECgh1AFAECAQEBAQEBAQYBAQEBAQE4AUWEaQEBBDocIxAIAxgJJQ8FJQMHGhOIbLBRi1wBAQgCASQghVSFJYoqBZpPkHSQPY1qhAwegSwTDIVcKjQBiEQBAQE
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:04:58 +1100
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
Message-ID: <20161124000458.GS31101@dastard>
References: <147977413859.13657.2181994710415174471.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com>
 <20161122084754.GA25596@gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4i+2NxdTc1xzVL+KQs8hLfUhbpGX3zstO_b=RY3hCy64w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jKwJaqXcmkB9Tt-sXOYhrixSRmFWA7r4QxKp10qCfCyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4jR8cVG4y90aCNycc8-PY29Jm3J89-w87dgE4hBpfVxWw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jR8cVG4y90aCNycc8-PY29Jm3J89-w87dgE4hBpfVxWw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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