Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754102AbYKPQGQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:06:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752705AbYKPQF7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:05:59 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:57624 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751910AbYKPQF7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:05:59 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:06:41 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Bernhard Walle Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, crash-utility@redhat.com Subject: Re: Turn CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM in sysctl dev.mem.restricted Message-ID: <20081116080641.3f4c3dba@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20081116165609.4f17fc10@kopernikus.site> References: <1226846868-9595-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> <20081116073948.02aea58c@infradead.org> <20081116165609.4f17fc10@kopernikus.site> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1713 Lines: 40 On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:56:09 +0100 Bernhard Walle wrote: > > > While the original submission of CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM mentions > > > that the option has been in RHEL and Fedora for 4 years without > > > problems, that's only a half of the story. The truth is that at > > > least RHEL has /dev/crash exactly to circumvent that /dev/mem > > > restriction. Don't tell me that this is better than having that > > > sysctl entry. ;-) > > > > I assume /dev/crash is read only > > I don't know. But if that matters, why can't we make /dev/mem > write-only for certain areas and read-only for the rest ...? > > > You either want this at compile time or you don't want it at all. > > Why? You don't write something about my arguments (as Alan does, even > though I disagree), you only write that you "nak" it. It's very simple: if you want the strict form you really want the strict form, not some half "oh but it's one line to turn off" form. (Note: your usecase is in trouble in general already with PAT used by modern video drivers: the requirement is that all mappings of the same physical page are mapped with the same cachability semantics. mmaping random parts of physical real memory via /dev/mem makes that a way too complex issue and will likely turn the crash utility in what it's name says ;-) -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/