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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to