On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:24:02 +0530 Sourabh Jain
wrote:
> While adding KHO support, commit 7d128945e003 ("kexec: add KHO support
> to kexec file loads") returns early from kexec_locate_mem_hole() if
> CONFIG_KEXEC_HANDOVER is not defined.
>
> Due to this, kexec_locate_mem_hole() does not locate
On 2/14/25 05:46, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> It sounds like you're advocating for the "slow guest boot" option.
>> Kirill, can you remind us how fast a guest boots to the shell for
>> modestly-sized (say 256GB) memory with "accept_memory=eager" versus
>> "accept_memory=lazy"? IIRC, it was a prett
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 07:55:15AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/13/25 06:59, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> ...
> > I have a new objection. I believe ``unaccepted memory'' and especially
> > lazily initialized ``unaccepted memory'' is an information leak that
> > could defeat the purpose of encryp
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 07:50:42AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/13/24 01:54, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > + /*
> > +* The destination addresses are searched from system RAM rather than
> > +* being allocated from the buddy allocator, so they are not guaranteed
> > +* to be accepted by the
While adding KHO support, commit 7d128945e003 ("kexec: add KHO support
to kexec file loads") returns early from kexec_locate_mem_hole() if
CONFIG_KEXEC_HANDOVER is not defined.
Due to this, kexec_locate_mem_hole() does not locate a hole for the
kexec segment, and kbuf.mem holds 0x0. This leads to
