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: <20190222184831.GF10237@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:48:31 -0700
From:   Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 07/10] acpi/hmat: Register processor domain to its
 memory

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:02:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:10 PM Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com> wrote:
> >  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'm trying to implement based on the feedback, but I'm a little confused.

As I have it at the moment, HMEM_REPORTING is not user-prompted, so
another option needs to turn it on. I have ACPI_HMAT do that here.

So when you say it's a bad idea to make HMEM_REPORTING user selectable,
isn't it already not user selectable?

If I do it the other way around, that's going to make HMEM_REPORTING
complicated if a non-ACPI implementation wants to report HMEM
properties.