linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] arm64/mpam: Replace the arm64.nompam parameter with arm64.mpam

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <86wm2lm8hg.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:30:19 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: tanze@...inos.cn
Cc: xry111@...111.site,
	james.morse@....com,
	catalin.marinas@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arm64/mpam: Replace the arm64.nompam parameter with arm64.mpam

On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:11:59 +0000,
tanze@...inos.cn wrote:
> 
> From: tanze <tanze@...inos.cn>
> 
> In practical application scenarios, some manufacturers use outdated
> firmware and do not add relevant configurations to the kernel command
> line during deployment, which will result in system boot failure.
> For manufacturers, disabling the MPAM feature by default and
> enabling it via additional boot parameters only when required
> is a more effective way to ensure compatibility.

No. I don't see the need to be overly cooperative with people who do
not care about what they ship.

If you want to run on broken systems, pass the option that allow you
to do so. But don't make it more complicated for people who have HW
that actually works.

I would rather remove the option to disable MPAM altogether and leave
these broken systems completely unsupported.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.