On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 05:30:57PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > On 10/10/18 at 11:19am, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:14:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Yes, it's different, but if the SRAT information is available early, then > > > the command line parameter can go away because then the required > > > information for Masa's problem is available as well. > > > > Exactly. And I'd prefer we delayed the command line parameter until we > > figure out we really need it and not expose it to upstream and then > > remove it shortly after. > > > > So I'd suggest we move Masa's patches to a separate branch and not send > > it up this round. > > Yes, sounds more reasonable if we can reuse functions in Chao's patch 1/3 > to solve the padding issue. Thanks for your comments! Yes, immovable_mem[num_immovable_mem] in Chao's patch may be useful for calculating the padding size. If so, we don't need the new kernel parameter. It's nice! Do you happen to have ideas how we access immovable_mem[num_immovable_mem] from arch/x86/mm/kaslr.c ? It is located to arch/x86/boot/compressed/*, so I suppose it is not easy to access it... I would appreciate if you could give some advice. Thanks! Masa
