linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm/migrate: export whether or not node is toptier in sysf

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]

Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 08:34:36 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        rientjes@...gle.com, yosryahmed@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
        gthelen@...gle.com, a.manzanares@...sung.com,
        heekwon.p@...sung.com, gim.jongmin@...sung.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm/migrate: export whether or not node is toptier in
 sysf

On 4/16/22 20:49, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> This allows userspace to know if the node is considered fast
> memory (with CPUs attached to it). While this can be already
> derived without a new file, this helps further encapsulate the
> concept.

What is userspace supposed to *do* with this, though?

What does "attached" mean?

Isn't it just asking for trouble to add (known) redundancy to the ABI?
It seems like a recipe for future inconsistency.