From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757059AbaDWRVz (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:21:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]:57166 "EHLO mail-wi0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752065AbaDWRVt (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:21:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:25:23 +0100 From: Leif Lindholm To: Grant Likely , Mark Rutland Cc: Rob Herring , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linaro Patches , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] of: dts: enable memory@0 quirk for PPC32 only Message-ID: <20140423172523.GM5904@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1397756521-29387-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20140418124821.GE5904@bivouac.eciton.net> <20140422130829.CA29DC4042C@trevor.secretlab.ca> <20140422140526.GK5904@bivouac.eciton.net> <20140423131508.6E53BC408D2@trevor.secretlab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140423131508.6E53BC408D2@trevor.secretlab.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:15:08PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > The reason for me doing that is because we (including you) agreed at > > the discussion held during LCU13 that this was the safest way of > > preventing "mischief" like userland trying to read information from > > /proc/device-tree... > > I'm not the most consistent of people. I often change my mind and then > have no recollection of ever thinking differently. And that is fine, but you were not the only person agreeing. > Userland reading from /proc/device-tree isn't so much a problem, but > kernel drivers doing it might be. > > But, regardless of whether or not the stub clears out the memory > nodes, it is still I think good practice for the kernel to make the > decision to ignore memory nodes, and not rely on them being cleared > correctly. I also remember you saying that relaxing restrictions later on is a lot easier than tightening them. On that basis, can we please get the UEFI set merged before we start redefining the stub/kernel protocol which was agreed at LCU (November last year) after spending a month or two trying to get sufficient number of interested parties in the same room? / Leif