[PATCH v13 03/16] s390, kexec_file: drop arch_kexec_mem_walk()

Dave Young dyoung at redhat.com
Tue Aug 28 06:43:47 PDT 2018


Hi AKASHI,
On 08/28/18 at 02:21pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 12:14:05AM -0400, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dave Young" <dyoung at redhat.com>
> > > To: "AKASHI Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org>, "Philipp Rudo" <prudo at linux.ibm.com>, "catalin marinas"
> > > <catalin.marinas at arm.com>, "will deacon" <will.deacon at arm.com>, dhowells at redhat.com, vgoyal at redhat.com,
> > > herbert at gondor.apana.org.au, davem at davemloft.net, bhe at redhat.com, arnd at arndb.de, schwidefsky at de.ibm.com, "heiko
> > > carstens" <heiko.carstens at de.ibm.com>, "ard biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>, "james morse"
> > > <james.morse at arm.com>, bhsharma at redhat.com, kexec at lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org,
> > > linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org, "piliu at redhat.com Thiago Jung Bauermann" <bauerman at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 11:34:16 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 03/16] s390, kexec_file: drop arch_kexec_mem_walk()
> > > 
> > > Add more cc. Pingfan Liu confirmed ppc does not use 0 as valid address,
> > > if so it should be safe.
> > > 
> > > Pingfan, can you add more words?
> > > 
> > 
> > ppc64 uses a few KB starting from 0 for exception handler.
> 
> It assures that 0 (zero) is valid, but won't be assigned as a result of
> kexec_add_buffer().
> 
> So do you think that yet I should submit another patch set, introducing
> explicit KEXEC_BUF_MEM_UNKNOWN, while assuming 0 by default is safe for now?
> 
> Now that this is the only comment against my v13, it's up to you.

I'm fine with your proposal.  It is simple enough, and we can look into
it when it becomes a problem in the future which is unlikely.

Thanks
Dave



More information about the kexec mailing list