linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: memory: Document linux,usable-memory property

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: <9c52990b-c8fd-440f-bd2c-bfa0e63c00fc@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:10:23 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Abhishek Tiwari <abhitiwari@...ux.microsoft.com>, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org,
 tony.luck@...el.com, gpiccoli@...lia.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Cc: abhitiwari@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: memory: Document linux,usable-memory
 property

On 13/03/2025 15:02, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
> Add Documentation for linux,usable-memory
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Tiwari <abhitiwari@...ux.microsoft.com>
> ---
>  .../bindings/linux,usable-memory.txt          | 32 +++++++++++++++++++

No TXT bindings anymore.

But anyway, please explain why reserved memory and the standard memory
node are not sufficient for you. For example:


> +
> +Common use cases include:
> +- Allocating ``ramoops`` region

this is reserved memory.

> +- Reserving memory for hardware-specific needs

Same.

> +- Fake Protecting persistent memory (PMEM)

Same.


What's more, explain why linux,usable-memory-range is not good... or you
just send some old patch from downstream forks?

Best regards,
Krzysztof