On 06/07/22 at 12:02pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 10:56 PM Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 05/27/22 at 02:55am, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > > > In some case initrd can be large. For example, it could be a netboot > > > image loaded by u-root, that is kexec'ing into it. > > > > > > The maximum size of initrd is arbitrary set to 2G. Also, the limit is > > > not very obvious because it is hidden behind a generic INT_MAX macro. > > > > > > Theoretically, we could make it LONG_MAX, but it is safer to keep it > > > sane, and just increase it to 4G. > > > > Do we need to care about 32bit system where initramfs could be larger > > than 2G? On 32bit system, SSIZE_MAX is still 2G, right? > > Yes, on 32-bit SSIZE_MAX is still 2G, so we are safe to keep 32-bit > systems run exactly as today. > > #define KEXEC_FILE_SIZE_MAX min_t(s64, 4LL << 30, SSIZE_MAX) > Is meant to protect against running over the 2G limit on 32-bit systems.
OK. In fact I was wrong. I386 doesn't have kexec_file loading support. > > > > > Another concern is if 2G is enough. If we can foresee it might need be ~~ 4G, typo > > enlarged again in a near future, LONG_MAX certainly is not a good > > value, but a little bigger multiple of 2G can be better? > > This little series enables increasing the max value above 2G, but > still keeps it within a sane size i.e. 4G, If 4G seems too small, I > can change it to 8G or 16G instead of 4G. Just raising to try to discuss if 4G is enough. I have no knowledge about how much is enough, and we don't need to guess, if you think 4G is enough according to information you get, that's OK. We can wait a while to see if other people have words about the vlaue. If no, then 4G is a good one. Thanks Baoquan _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec