From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2437247606E; Fri, 21 Aug 2026 14:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787321521; cv=none; b=DFoYjK5tx1cAcyc4GxVXs/ujRr/NvJH+vRoC1miKess61mr25+3b4q6BbLTPRTYHPGlOoBLshMcrHxq0jpTPJPZfEGTTeuAIDXIigMVJ0rUb5GcAmI5JWn7Sb0AfzXW0Ypzme2IRl4xXS56i6SW1vqt5Cpan5gj5PIq7hzOnP74= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787321521; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+s8nrVru3lVt51o3WPC0OWAgHhejkRrpE7BPTflxZfo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=o0eCMTmYi7nPK7r7ddCCsi85clgAGsro8ftFgR91MYSIGBocMQb/90BiuaTpFxHaN/q13mEwVDpv51wOwpz3t9JcEQARuzIdRrBNV9yD4xP8jZW5+PZjrSJCWEc8afcqHN2ZHr/zirdUPngq5y1UEKkskrSgUQh7RRqYvszsbIg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=fsH1sn0f; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="fsH1sn0f" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=eb7xA0CZoUY2QWL9JJY5cm27fWnsNVXdbEb3sAd4rNw=; b=fsH1sn0fhWE8VQ6z44pz/Lqc0a aCuIa4UarAIbljORKpZoWr5R+6hCDAZCFRXWhw03ztEtOLQEAiso10RmuGAuvbUom2dZRqwfOts8T DflDsj6s87G8SrgSKJetC2hOs7bkiC5VmU2tr2ONT1PGzK6UZUTOEQHT6mVos88136eN0KHVzSi5K kEArKhSiS0hL+otnGvynq3ETl9EJ1kxDAJqglojE0UsKQfqDM+QahbRafrvAGQQlQLrRwQjQDLIKt JNqShfQBu8zJgRuB1Ydjc2ADFaEYuvhsRvRcFilDMT7zEAi5QYlXu1ebTL23bI1fh9M1+lAqt8HI+ Fi8v6Zug==; Received: from authenticated-user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wxPyJ-00BOWn-2i; Fri, 21 Aug 2026 14:11:52 +0000 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 07:11:47 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Pratyush Yadav Cc: Kiryl Shutsemau , Ard Biesheuvel , Ilias Apalodimas , Miaohe Lin , Naoya Horiguchi , Andrew Morton , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rmikey@meta.com, riel@surriel.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] efi: add the LINUX_EFI_POISONED_MEMORY configuration table Message-ID: References: <20260821-hwpoison-kho-v2-0-5743791e48e6@debian.org> <20260821-hwpoison-kho-v2-2-5743791e48e6@debian.org> <2vxz5x13znn1.fsf@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2vxz5x13znn1.fsf@kernel.org> X-Debian-User: leitao Hello Pratyush, On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 02:03:30PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > >> +config EFI_POISONED_MEMORY > >> + bool "Carry hardware-poisoned pages across kexec" > >> + depends on EFI_STUB && MEMORY_FAILURE && 64BIT > >> + help > >> + Record page frames that are hardware-poisoned while this kernel runs > >> + into an EFI configuration table, and honor that table early on the > >> + next kernel so a kexec does not hand known-bad RAM back out. > >> + > >> + If unsure, say N. > >> + > > > > Do we want to make it conditional? Maybe just for everyone with EFI_STUB > > && MEMORY_FAILURE? > > +1. Each config we add is a decision someone has to make when compiling > the kernel. If they rely on the default, they will miss out on this > fairly useful feature. > > So, is there any downside to just doing this by default without any > config? The only downside I see is that this extra config table gets carved out of main memory for every MEMORY_FAILURE user. That is roughly 64 KiB per TiB of RAM, though, so maybe it is small enough to just enable by default?! Thanks for the review, --breno