linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv6 07/10] acpi/hmat: Register processor domain to its memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iP032bqAgCZ8czRXkJ_gXz0H1EVC+ypf6NhKQ65aKczg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:13:53 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 07/10] acpi/hmat: Register processor domain to its memory

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:11 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/19 2:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/hmat/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/hmat/Kconfig
> >> index c9637e2e7514..08e972ead159 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/hmat/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/hmat/Kconfig
> >> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> >>  config ACPI_HMAT
> >>         bool "ACPI Heterogeneous Memory Attribute Table Support"
> >>         depends on ACPI_NUMA
> >> +       select HMEM_REPORTING
> > If you want to do this here, I'm not sure that defining HMEM_REPORTING
> > as a user-selectable option is a good idea.  In particular, I don't
> > really think that setting ACPI_HMAT without it makes a lot of sense.
> > Apart from this, the patch looks reasonable to me.
>
> I guess the question is whether we would want to allow folks to consume
> the HMAT inside the kernel while not reporting it out via
> HMEM_REPORTING.  We have some in-kernel users of the HMAT lined up like
> mitigations for memory-side caches.
>
> It's certainly possible that folks would want to consume those
> mitigations without anything in sysfs.  They might not even want or need
> NUMA support itself, for instance.
>
> So, what should we do?
>
> config HMEM_REPORTING
>         bool # no user-visible prompt
>         default y if ACPI_HMAT
>
> So folks can override in their .config, but they don't see a prompt?

I would add an "&& ACPI_NUMA" to that default as well.