linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/29] x86/boot/e820: Print E820_TYPE

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: <aCXKW3sBBtIr9Bcl@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 13:04:59 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/29] x86/boot/e820: Print E820_TYPE_RAM entries as ...
 RAM entries


* Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 09:31:31AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 08:51:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar kirjoitti:
> > > So it is a bit weird that the actual RAM entries of the E820 table
> > > are not actually called RAM, but 'usable':
> > > 
> > > 	BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x000000007ffdbfff]    1.9 GB usable
> > > 
> > > 'usable' is pretty passive-aggressive in that context and ambiguous,
> > > most E820 entries denote 'usable' address ranges - reserved ranges
> > > may be used by devices, or the platform.
> > > 
> > > Clarify and disambiguate this by making the boot log entry
> > > explicitly say 'kernel usable RAM':
> > > 
> > > 	BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x000000007ffdbfff]    1.9 GB kernel usable RAM
> > 
> > Can't user space use that RAM?
> > 
> > Shouldn't we rather refer to "OS usable RAM"?
> 
> Or "System RAM", just like in /proc/iomem

Agreed - I have folded in the delta patch below.

Thanks,

	Ingo

=============================>
 arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
index 8b84261173cc..0a324d0db60e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ void __init e820__range_add(u64 start, u64 size, enum e820_type type)
 static void __init e820_print_type(enum e820_type type)
 {
 	switch (type) {
-	case E820_TYPE_RAM:		pr_cont(" kernel usable RAM");		break;
+	case E820_TYPE_RAM:		pr_cont(" System RAM");			break;
 	case E820_TYPE_RESERVED:	pr_cont(" reserved");			break;
 	case E820_TYPE_SOFT_RESERVED:	pr_cont(" soft reserved");		break;
 	case E820_TYPE_ACPI:		pr_cont(" ACPI data");			break;