Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1337246

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Parameterize the kernel's IMR lock logic

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 08:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So why not simply do the patch below? Very few people use boot
> parameters, and the 
> complexity does not seem to be worth it.
> 
> Furthermore I think an IMR range in itself is safe enough - it's not
> like such 
> register state is going to be randomly corrupted, even with the
> 'lock' bit unset. 


Hi Ingo.

I agree - to flip the lock bit you need to be in ring-0 anyway.

> So it's a perfectly fine protective measure against accidental memory
> corruption 
> from the DMA space. It should not try to be more than that.
> 
> And once we do this, I suggest we get rid of the 'lock' parameter
> altogether - 
> that will further simplify the code.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         Ingo

That was the V1 of this patch

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/6ZuVOF3TJow

Andriy asked for the boot parameter to control the state of the IMR
lock bit, I'm just as happy to go back to that version TBH

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Parameterize the kernel's IMR lock logic Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie> - 2016-02-18 04:40 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Parameterize the kernel's IMR lock logic Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-18 09:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Parameterize the kernel's IMR lock  logic Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie> - 2016-02-18 11:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Parameterize the kernel's IMR lock logic Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-18 20:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Parameterize the kernel's IMR lock  logic Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie> - 2016-02-19 02:10 +0100

csiph-web