linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Introduce carved-out memory region binding

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: <20250701-frisky-resolute-hamster-3dfedc@houat>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 09:12:15 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, 
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com>, 
	Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@....com>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, 
	"T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com>, Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, 
	Jared Kangas <jkangas@...hat.com>, Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@...nel.org>, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Introduce
 carved-out memory region binding

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 05:08:19PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 06:41:38PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:31:32PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > Some parts of the memory can be dedicated to specific purposes and
> > > > exposed as a dedicated memory allocator.
> > > > 
> > > > This is especially useful if that particular region has a particular
> > > > properties the rest of the memory doesn't have. For example, some
> > > > platforms have their entire RAM covered by ECC but for a small area
> > > > meant to be used by applications that don't need ECC, and its associated
> > > > overhead.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's introduce a binding to describe such a region and allow the OS to
> > > > create a dedicated memory allocator for it.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../bindings/reserved-memory/carved-out.yaml       | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/carved-out.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/carved-out.yaml
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ab5d1ebd9ebd9111b7c064fabe1c45e752da83b
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/carved-out.yaml
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > +---
> > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/reserved-memory/carved-out.yaml#
> > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > +
> > > > +title: Carved-out Memory Region
> > > > +
> > > > +description: |
> > > 
> > > Don't need '|'.
> > > 
> > > > +  Specifies that the reserved memory region has been carved out of the
> > > > +  main memory allocator, and is intended to be used by the OS as a
> > > > +  dedicated memory allocator.
> > > 
> > > Other than the commit msg, it is completely lost that this is for 
> > > ECC-less memory.
> > 
> > Because it's not. One of the first feedback I got was that the way to
> > identify what a heap provides was the heap name.
> > 
> > So, as far as the binding go, a heap just exposes a chunk of memory the
> > memory allocator wouldn't use. The actual semantics of that chunk of
> > memory don't matter.
> 
> But they do because you use one carve out for one thing and another 
> carve out for another purpose and they probably aren't interchangeable.

That was also my initial thought, but it was then discussed that the
name of the region is enough of a discriminant. And it makes sense too,
it's a sufficient discriminant for the device tree to uniquely identify
a given memory region on a given platform already, so we don't really
need anything else.

> For the most part, everything in /reserved-memory is a carve out from 
> regular memory though we failed to enforce that.
> 
> > > This description applies to CMA area as well. So what's the difference?
> > 
> > Yeah, I kind of agree, which is why I initially started with a property,
> > and you then asked for a compatible.
> 
> My issues with properties is we have to support N factorial cases for 
> combinations of N properties. It's already fragile. Whereas a compatible 
> is (hopefully) well defined as to what's needed and is only 1 more case 
> to support.

I think that's also what John especially wanted to avoid. If we have a
generic compatible, but the attributes/properties/whatever of the
buffers allocated from that region differ (like ecc vs non-ecc,
protected vs non-protected, etc.) we will need properties in the device
tree to describe them too.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (274 bytes)