Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-25 Thread Chuck Ebbert
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:15:37 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 25.02.2009 13:27, Chris Lalancette wrote: > > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> We can also simply do this: > >> > >> - Install PAE kernel if the CPU supports PAE. > >> > >> i.e. make PAE the default kernel. > > > > Yes, I really think we

Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-25 Thread Chris Lalancette
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 25.02.2009 13:27, Chris Lalancette wrote: >> Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>> We can also simply do this: >>> >>> - Install PAE kernel if the CPU supports PAE. >>> >>> i.e. make PAE the default kernel. >> Yes, I really think we should just do this. It's simple, it means we g

Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-25 Thread Thorsten Leemhuis
On 25.02.2009 13:27, Chris Lalancette wrote: Gerd Hoffmann wrote: We can also simply do this: - Install PAE kernel if the CPU supports PAE. i.e. make PAE the default kernel. Yes, I really think we should just do this. It's simple, it means we get the logic right for Xen as well as bare-met

Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-25 Thread Chris Lalancette
Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > We can also simply do this: > > - Install PAE kernel if the CPU supports PAE. > > i.e. make PAE the default kernel. Yes, I really think we should just do this. It's simple, it means we get the logic right for Xen as well as bare-metal (without any special cases), and the

Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-25 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Will Woods wrote: > (PAE_flag and >=4GB RAM) or (PAE_flag and vmx_flag and >=1GB RAM) > > where vmx_flag is the flag for hardware virt stuff. Is this a good test? No. > Some further questions: > - Is a PAE kernel required for proper virt support? Xen stopped supporting non-PAE (paravirt) guest

Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-24 Thread Chuck Ebbert
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:38:42 -0800 (PST) Roland McGrath wrote: > > If we have NX (which anything made in the last few years will) > > it's a performance win to use the hardware NX instead of the > > segment limit hack we implemented in execshield. > > It's more than performance. The segment lim

Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-24 Thread Roland McGrath
> If we have NX (which anything made in the last few years will) > it's a performance win to use the hardware NX instead of the > segment limit hack we implemented in execshield. It's more than performance. The segment limit hack is a hack, and does not actually do full enforcement in all cases (

Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-24 Thread Dave Jones
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:22:00PM -0500, Will Woods wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 10:19 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Chris Lalancette (clala...@redhat.com) said: > > > Do we know if anaconda is going to change > > > to choose kernel-PAE for any machine with the PAE flag, regardless of

Re: How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-24 Thread Roland McGrath
> - Should we be using the PAE kernel *regardless* of memory size (as > implied above) or do we want some memory requirements? It's always preferable on hardware (where pae actually works) that also has the nx cpu feature. True PROT_EXEC enforcement (NX) is only available in PAE mode. Thanks, R

How should anaconda check for PAE? (was Re: arch fun.)

2009-02-24 Thread Will Woods
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 10:19 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Chris Lalancette (clala...@redhat.com) said: > > Do we know if anaconda is going to change > > to choose kernel-PAE for any machine with the PAE flag, regardless of the > > amount > > of memory? > > That's the plan - the patch should be