Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:56:53 -0700 | From | Stefan Bader <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Limit 2/4M size calculation to x86_32 |
| |
On 08/31/2012 09:41 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > I'm not saying we shouldn't patch the regression, but this house of cards > *needs* to be replaced with something robust and correct by construction.
Then I did misunderstand/-interpret you about the former part and we actually are agreeing on the whole topic. Sorry about that. So the re-post just should serve as a reminder as the last comment here was quite a while ago.
> > Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com> wrote: > >> Avi wrote: >>> The fact that the check is only done on i386 and not on x86_64 may come >>> from one of >>> >>> - an oversight - by the time x86_64 processors came along, the problem >>> with conflicting sizes was resolved - the whole thing is bogus >>> >>> Copying hpa who may be in a position to find out which. >> >> Talking to hpa it is more of the last. For more than just this reason. >> Since the whole area of initial page tables seems to be rather sensitive >> and easy to break there have been discussions and plans to come up with a >> rewrite to improve on all those shortcomings. >> >> The detail I am not agreeing with hpa is the fixup for the immediate >> breakage at head. IMO right now the code just has regressed and that should >> be fixed as soon as possible. Plus doing a specific and small fix allows >> that to be applicable to stable (which again still depends on things being >> upstream). >> >> Hence the re-send in the hope that on the larger scale the may be agreement >> on the immediate fix. I am not doubting the usefulness or need of a better >> solution, but I think that having a remedy of the current situation just >> until then has enough benefit to be considered. >> >> -Stefan
| |